CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guttierez v. Berryhill

Betsy Lee Guttierez applied for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income, alleging disability due to various mental health impairments. Her applications were denied by an Administrative Law Judge and the Appeals Council. Guttierez sought judicial review, arguing that the ALJ failed to properly assess her residual functional capacity (RFC) by rejecting the only medical opinion on her mental ability to work without providing adequate reasons or a function-by-function analysis. The Court agreed, finding the ALJ's RFC assessment unsupported by substantial evidence, as the ALJ, a non-medical professional, made a determination of Guttierez's mental capacity without relying on a medical opinion. Consequently, the Court granted Guttierez's motion, denied the Commissioner's motion, and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings.

Social Security ActDisability BenefitsSSIALJ Decision ReviewRFC AssessmentMedical EvidenceMental Health ImpairmentsBipolar DisorderAnxiety DisorderTreating Physician Rule
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ortiz Torres v. Colvin

Luz Leida Ortiz Torres appealed the denial of her Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. The District Court found that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) improperly discounted the treating physician's opinion regarding Ortiz's physical limitations based on a conservative treatment regimen. Consequently, the court vacated the Commissioner's decision in part and remanded the case for a more comprehensive physical residual functional capacity assessment. However, the court affirmed the ALJ's findings on Ortiz's mental residual functional capacity and credibility, deeming them supported by substantial evidence.

Supplemental Security Income (SSI)Disability BenefitsSocial Security Administration (SSA)Residual Functional Capacity (RFC)Degenerative Disc DiseaseDepressionMedical-Vocational Guidelines (Grid)Treating Physician RuleCredibility DeterminationRemand Order
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matejka v. Barnhart

Plaintiff, Ms. Matejka, alleging disability since March 31, 2000, applied for Disability Insurance Benefits, which was denied by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The plaintiff sought review in District Court, arguing the ALJ's decision lacked sufficient inquiry into past relevant work, a reasoned finding on credibility, a proper residual functional capacity assessment, and a correct determination of the severity of her depression. The District Court found the ALJ's conclusions not supported by substantial evidence due to these deficiencies, particularly regarding the exertional requirements of past work, the evaluation of the plaintiff's credibility, the lack of a function-by-function RFC analysis, and the failure to adequately assess the severity of her depression, especially in light of uncontradicted medical opinions. Consequently, the Court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case for a new hearing consistent with its findings.

Disability Insurance BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgeResidual Functional CapacityCredibility AssessmentMedical EvidencePsychological AssessmentSpinal StenosisChronic Back PainDepressionRemand
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosado v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Concepcion Perez Rosado sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her application for disability benefits, alleging errors in the administrative hearing. The District Court found that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) failed to adequately develop the medical record, specifically regarding a treating psychologist's incomplete report and a lack of proper inquiry into missing information. The ALJ also incorrectly applied the legal standard for assessing Rosado's mental Residual Functional Capacity (RFC), conflating the "B" criteria for severity with the more detailed RFC assessment required for work-related functions. The court ruled that these failures constituted legal error, depriving Rosado of a full and fair hearing. Consequently, Rosado's motion for judgment on the pleadings was GRANTED, the Commissioner's motion was DENIED, and the case was REMANDED to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings consistent with the Decision and Order, including further development of the medical record and proper RFC assessment.

Social Security ActDisability BenefitsSupplemental Security Income (SSI)Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)Medical Record DevelopmentTreating Physician RuleResidual Functional Capacity (RFC)Mental ImpairmentDepressionAnxiety
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2013

Karabinas v. Colvin

Dimitrios N. Karabinas challenged the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of his Disability Insurance Benefits application, arguing the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) committed several legal errors. The court identified flaws in the ALJ's Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) assessment, including failure to accommodate Karabinas's moderate difficulties in concentration, persistence, and pace, and an incomplete function-by-function analysis of his work abilities. Furthermore, the court found the ALJ improperly weighed medical opinions, specifically downplaying the detailed report from Karabinas's chiropractor, and based its credibility determination on a circular logic. Concluding that the ALJ's errors led to an unsupported denial of benefits, the District Court reversed the Commissioner's decision. The case was remanded for the sole purpose of calculating and providing benefits to Karabinas for the specified period.

Disability Insurance BenefitsSocial Security ActRFC AssessmentMedical OpinionCredibility AssessmentVocational ExpertCervical Disc ProblemsPain ManagementChiropractic TreatmentWork Limitations
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vay v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Plaintiff Emily R. Vay sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying her application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Plaintiff alleged disability due to anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, pervasive development disorder, Asperger's syndrome, and learning disability since January 16, 2014. Her application was initially denied, and after a hearing before Administrative Law Judge William M. Manico, an unfavorable decision was issued on January 21, 2016, which became the Commissioner's final decision after the Appeals Council denied review on May 26, 2017. Before the District Court, both parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff argued that the ALJ failed to develop the record regarding recent treatment, improperly assessed her credibility, and mischaracterized her impairments, leading to an unsupported Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) finding. The Court, presided over by Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford, granted the Commissioner's motion and denied Plaintiff's motion, finding that the Commissioner's determination was supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error. The Court concluded that the ALJ adequately developed the record, made a reasonable credibility assessment based on conflicting evidence, and properly assessed Plaintiff's impairments and RFC.

Supplemental Security IncomeSocial Security ActDisability BenefitsALJ Decision ReviewResidual Functional CapacityCredibility AssessmentRecord DevelopmentAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderAnxiety DisorderAutism Spectrum Disorder
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wynn v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Plaintiff Tammy Sue Wynn applied for supplemental security income (SSI), alleging disability due to various physical and mental impairments. Her application was initially denied by an administrative law judge (ALJ), and this decision was upheld by the Appeals Council. Plaintiff sought judicial review, arguing that the ALJ improperly evaluated medical opinions, made an unsupported Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) assessment, and incorrectly assessed her credibility. The District Court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding that the ALJ's reasoning was supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error.

SSIDisability BenefitsSocial Security Act ReviewALJ Decision ReviewResidual Functional CapacityMedical Opinion EvaluationCredibility AssessmentDepressionAnxiety DisorderChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
References
31
Case No. 17-CV-667-EAW
Regular Panel Decision

Nelson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Plaintiff Jennifer Marie Nelson sought judicial review of a denial of disability insurance benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security. The U.S. District Court, Western District of New York, found that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred in assessing Plaintiff's Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) by failing to properly evaluate opinion evidence from a therapist and by substituting her own lay judgment for medical opinion. The ALJ also failed to develop the record by obtaining sufficient medical evidence relevant to the period of disability. The court granted Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings, instructing the ALJ to reconsider the therapist's opinion and fully explain the basis for any RFC assessment.

Social Security ActDisability BenefitsALJ ErrorResidual Functional CapacityMedical Opinion EvidenceFunctional LimitationsRemandMental ImpairmentsConsultative ExaminationDistrict Court Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'HALLORAN v. Barnhart

The plaintiff, Kathleen O’Halloran, sought judicial review of a final determination by the Commissioner of Social Security denying her Disability Insurance Benefits. The District Court found that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) made several legal errors in assessing O’Halloran’s disability claim. These errors included failing to properly evaluate her mental impairments and functional limitations, not fully developing the record with "other source" evidence from treating therapists, nurses, and family, and misapplying standards regarding her residual functional capacity and ability to perform past work. The court also noted the ALJ's incorrect evaluation of the materiality of O'Halloran's alcohol abuse. Consequently, the court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its order.

Social Security ActDisability Insurance BenefitsMental ImpairmentParanoid SchizophreniaAlcohol AbuseAdministrative Law JudgeResidual Functional CapacitySequential Evaluation ProcessMental Impairments EvaluationPast Relevant Work
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Iannopollo v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Anthony J. Iannopollo appealed the Commissioner of Social Security's final determination that he was not disabled and thus not entitled to Social Security disability insurance benefits. The District Court, presided over by Judge Larimer, reviewed the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision. The Court found that the ALJ committed legal error by failing to give controlling weight to the opinion of Dr. Olaf Lieberg, the plaintiff's treating physician. Dr. Lieberg's Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) assessment indicated significant nonexertional limitations that would erode the plaintiff's ability to perform the full range of sedentary work. Consequently, the Commissioner's decision was reversed, and the case was remanded for a rehearing, requiring a full consideration of Dr. Lieberg's assessment and the additional testimony of a vocational expert.

Social Security DisabilitySSDI BenefitsALJ ErrorTreating Physician RuleResidual Functional CapacitySedentary WorkNonexertional LimitationsVocational ExpertMental ImpairmentAnxiety
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 1,743 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational