Cleveland, OH
Social Security & Disability Lawyer at Cleveland, OH
Practice Areas: Social Security
OUTCOME: Case remanded for a new hearing.
Counsel successfully argued that the Administrative Law Judge misconstrued the record and failed to adequately address Plaintiff's fatigue and malaise when evaluating lupus and kidney disease under lis ... ting 14.02.
OUTCOME: Case has been remanded for a new hearing.
Social Security failed to give sufficient weight to the opinion of the treating rheumatologist. As a result, disability was erroeneously denied.
OUTCOME: Remanded for a new hearing
The Administrative Law Judge failed to fully and fairly evaluate all of the treating physicians' opinions. Also failed to consider combined effect of claimant's impairments in total.
OUTCOME: Remanded for a new hearing.
The Administrative Law Judge failed to acknowledge the opinion of the claimant's treating physician.
OUTCOME: A new hearing has been ordered to address severity of medical condition and treating physician's opinion.
This individual was in a severe car accident and her foot had to be reattached at the ankle. Counsel was able to demonstrate Social Security was in error in finding an ability to perform light work. Al ... so proved that sufficient consideration was not given to treating physician's opinion.
OUTCOME: Disability benefits were approved for individual with significant hearing impairment.
District Court remand for further proceedings because the medical evidence was insufficient to support the ALJ’s finding that the plaintiff’s hearing impairment did not meet or medically equal listin ... g 2.08. The ALJ had to duty to obtain updated medical evidence of the plaintiff’s hearing because the outdated evidence in the record showed that her impairment was deteriorating and had been close to meeting listing 2.08 at that time. The ALJ erred in finding that the treating physicians and other third parties did not report that the plaintiff’s hearing impairments caused undue difficulty in interacting with others. During the hearing, the ALJ allowed the plaintiff’s attorney to question her because her impairment prevented her from adequately interacting with the ALJ. The ALJ’s conclusion that the plaintiff’s testimony and demeanor at the hearing indicated that she could perform a wide range of work when using hearing aids and if given appropriate accommodations was “puzzling” since the ALJ did not explain the basis for this conclusion.
OUTCOME: A new hearing was provided for appropriate evaluation of Fibromyalgia.
District court decision when the ALJ erred in considering objective medical signs in determining that the plaintiff, who suffered from fibromyalgia, was not credible. “Fibromyalgia patients present n ... o objectively alarming signs.” The ALJ’s statement regarding joint deformity, range of motion, muscle strength etc. are “irrelevant to determining whether a claimant’s subjective assertions regarding pain are credible.” What the ALJ persistently ignored. . was [the plaintiff’s] ability to maintain work on a daily basis.” This was a particular problem, since the VE testified that if an individual cannot work for a month without missing 5 days of work, then there are no jobs she can perform.
OUTCOME: Case remanded for new hearing. Judge directed to consider hand limits and treating physician's opinion.
48 year old man with diabetes, peripheral neuropathy and COPD. Despite seriousness of condition, particularly hand limitations, the ALJ found claimant could perform sedentary work.