This document was prepared for use in the NADR webinar scheduled for July 20, 2023. If you are attending this webinar, please download this document.
BRIEF SAMPLE: District of New Jersey. REMAND ORDERED. Issue: Whether the ALJ erred as a matter of law by failing to account for the Plaintiff’s mild mental limitations in the RFC where the claimant is a an attorney working under SGA and who underwent two liver transplants.CLICK TO DOWNLOAD
BRIEF SAMPLE: Issues: (1) failure to consider a listing; (2) ALJ relied on old evidence; (3) failure to evaluate evidence submitted to Appeals Council; (4) failure to consider cumulative effects of medications; (5) failure to order a consultative examination; (6) failure to consider memory difficulties as a “severe” condition; (7) failure to consider GAF scores under 50; (8) failure to consider GRIDs; (9) ALJ improperly classified age; (10) ALJ failed to propose a complete hypothetical to the VE; (11) failure to consider the episodic nature of bipolar disorder; (12) improper evaluation of Plaintiff’s medical providers.CLICK TO DOWNLOAD
BRIEF SAMPLE: Issues: (1) ALJ erred in failing to evaluate whether migraine headaches equaled listing 11.02B; (2) whether a doctor’s opinion, found “persuasive”, should have conclusively established that the Plaintiff’s condition equaled listing 11.02B; (3) ALJ improperly formulated RFC; (4) failure to propose a complete hypothetical to VE taking into account Plaintiff’s absenteeism and time off task.CLICK TO DOWNLOAD
BRIEF SAMPLE: Issues: (1) ALJ erred in finding claimant did not meed requirements of listing 12.02B; (2) failure to consider claimant’s agoraphobia; (3) failure to formulate an RFC that took into account restrictions related to all severe medical conditions; (4) failure to propose a complete hypothetical to VE taking into account Plaintiff’s limitations in Concentration, Persistence, and Pace.CLICK TO DOWNLOAD
BRIEF SAMPLE: Issues: (1) ALJ improperly formulated RFC by failing to provide any explanation as to why the Plaintiff would miss one, and not more, days of work per month; (2) ALJ erred by failing to provide for any limitations related to the Plaintiff’s chronic headaches.CLICK TO DOWNLOAD
BRIEF SAMPLE: Issues: (1) ALJ improperly evaluated opinions of the Plaintiff’s medical providers; (2) failure to properly evaluate Plaintiff’s bilateral carpal tunnel; (3) failure to evaluate Plaintiff’s use of a cane; (4) failure to properly evaluate the Plaintiff’s obesity; (5) failure to consider Plaintiff’s complete inability to stoop; (6) failure to consider a “closed period” of disability.CLICK TO DOWNLOAD
BRIEF SAMPLE: Issues: (1) ALJ failed to evaluate Plaintiff’s use of a cane; (2) failure to consider cumulative effects of all medications; (3) failure to properly create an RFC where it was determined Plaintiff could sit for 20 minutes, and stand for 20 minutes, alternatively throughout the workday, without specifying if he would be on or off task during the times Plaintiff was standing; (4) failure to properly evaluate the Plaintiff’s obesity; (5) failure to consider a “closed period” of disability.CLICK TO DOWNLOAD
BRIEF SAMPLE: Issues: (1) ALJ erred by failing to include all of Plaintiff’s cognitive limitations in the RFC; (2) failure to propose a complete hypothetical to the VE taking into consideration all of the Plaintiff’s limitations, including cognitive limitation to follow even simple instructions; (3) failure to address a medical opinion that states the Plaintiff has limitations in “gross manipulation, reaching, handling, grasping, and pushing/pulling; (4) failure to consider drowsiness and fatigue; (5) failure to consider GAF scores that were as low as 38.CLICK TO DOWNLOAD