Representative Cases
A record built one brief at a time.
Selected federal court matters illustrating the questions we litigate and the standards we hold decisions to.
Significantly probative evidence the ALJ failed to discuss
Galloway v. Commissioner, SSA — U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit (No. 23-4054)
The administrative law judge assessed a light-work residual functional capacity without ever addressing a functional capacity evaluation documenting objective lifting, carrying, upper-extremity, and ambulation deficits — including a six-minute walk test result well below the norm for a man decades older. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit held the evaluation was significantly probative evidence the ALJ was required to discuss, and that a general statement of having considered the whole record did not excuse the omission.
Reversed and remanded to the agency for further proceedings (April 9, 2024)
Sentence Four reversal and remand of the Commissioner's final decision
Tavarez L. v. Commissioner, SSA — U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division (No. 3:25-cv-2942-BK)
After federal court briefing, the Commissioner moved unopposed to return the case to the agency. The court granted the motion, reversed the Commissioner's final decision, and remanded under Sentence Four of Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), directing the Appeals Council to order a new hearing, complete the administrative record, and issue a new decision.
Reversed and remanded under Sentence Four (April 23, 2026)
Residual functional capacity and defective vocational hypothetical — visual limitations
Sandra J. v. Commissioner, SSA — U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division (No. 4:24-cv-1043-BK)
The ALJ found thyroid eye disease with double vision to be a severe impairment yet accounted for it only by precluding driving and climbing ladders, ropes, and scaffolds. The record showed the claimant managed diplopia by closing one eye, a limitation never presented to the vocational expert. The court held the residual functional capacity failed to incorporate a recognized, record-supported limitation and that reliance on the resulting hypothetical was not substantially justified.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings (March 30, 2026)
SSR 96-8p — unexplained conflict between the RFC and a relied-upon medical opinion
Sharp v. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security — U.S. District Court, District of Kansas (No. 25-4014-EFM)
The ALJ credited a consultative examiner's opinion as supported and consistent, yet omitted from the residual functional capacity her finding that the claimant may have difficulty maintaining a regular work schedule — without any narrative explanation. The court rejected the Commissioner's post-hoc rationalizations, held that SSR 96-8p required the ALJ to explain the omission, and found the error harmful because the vocational expert testified that the omitted limitation would preclude all work.
Reversed and remanded under Sentence Four (October 27, 2025)
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome in any future matter, and nothing here constitutes legal advice or creates an attorney-client relationship.