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

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

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

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

Johnson v. Barnhart

The plaintiff appealed the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, alleging disability due to various physical and mental ailments. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially denied the claim, a decision upheld by the Appeals Council. The District Court subsequently reversed the Commissioner's decision, identifying several errors in the ALJ's evaluation. Specifically, the court found fault with the ALJ's assessment of the plaintiff's claim under Listing of Impairments 12.05C, the determination of residual functional capacity, and the evaluation of the plaintiff's credibility. The case was remanded for a new hearing to address these deficiencies.

Social Security BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeDisability ClaimAdministrative Law JudgeResidual Functional CapacityFibromyalgiaVocational Expert TestimonyCredibility AssessmentMedical-Vocational GuidelinesListing of Impairments 12.05C
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dennis v. Colvin

Plaintiff Alicia B. Dennis challenged an Administrative Law Judge's denial of her disability benefits application under the Social Security Act. The District Court reviewed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. The court found that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate Plaintiff's coronary artery disease by interpreting diagnostic evidence without supporting medical opinions on functional limitations. This error rendered the ALJ's Residual Functional Capacity finding unsupported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the court granted Plaintiff's motion, denied Defendant's motion, and remanded the case for the ALJ to obtain further medical opinion evidence consistent with the decision.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActAdministrative Law JudgeRemandMedical EvidenceCoronary Artery DiseaseResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician RuleALJ ErrorJudicial Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephens v. Colvin

Plaintiff Duane Stephens sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of his application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The U.S. Magistrate Judge found that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred at step three by not finding plaintiff's intellectual disability met Listing 12.05(c) and that the ALJ's Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) determination was not supported by substantial evidence, particularly regarding plaintiff's attention and concentration limitations. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings and remanded the case to the Commissioner for reconsideration, emphasizing the need to re-evaluate adaptive functioning deficits and potentially consult a vocational expert.

Disability Insurance BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeSocial Security ActAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ) ReviewAppeals Council ReviewResidual Functional Capacity (RFC)Listing of Impairments (Appendix 1)Intellectual DisabilityAdaptive Functioning DeficitsChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jimmeson v. Berryhill

Plaintiff Makesha Jimmeson challenged the denial of her application for disability insurance benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security. The court found that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) failed to classify plaintiff's bipolar and impulse control disorders as severe impairments at Step Two of the evaluation process, an error deemed not harmless as these disorders could explain her treatment non-compliance. Furthermore, the ALJ mischaracterized a consultative psychiatric evaluation by Dr. Finnity, diluting her clear findings of plaintiff's inability to maintain a regular schedule, relate to others, and deal with stress. This led to an unsupported Residual Functional Capacity assessment. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner's cross-motion, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this order.

Social Security ActDisability BenefitsJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law Judge ErrorBipolar DisorderImpulse Control DisorderMental Health ImpairmentTreatment Non-complianceConsultative ExaminationResidual Functional Capacity
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Saxon v. Astrue

Shanna Saxon, the plaintiff, sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to deny her application for disability benefits. Plaintiff had applied for SSI and DIB in 2002 and 2004, which were denied by an ALJ and upheld by the Appeals Council. She filed new applications in 2005, alleging inability to work due to depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety, and schizophrenia. The ALJ denied these claims, finding she was not disabled. The plaintiff appealed, arguing errors in reopening prior applications, failing to obtain medical records, assessing listed impairments, considering treating sources, assessing credibility, and burden of proof. The court found that the ALJ erred by failing to address and assign weight to the opinion of Ani Shahinien, a Certified Social Worker, who was a key treating source. Consequently, the court reversed the decision and remanded the case for further proceedings to properly evaluate Ms. Shahinien's opinion, reassess plaintiff's residual functional capacity, and analyze the fifth step of the sequential evaluation.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActALJ DecisionJudicial ReviewTreating Physician RuleCredibility AssessmentRemandMental ImpairmentMedical RecordsResidual Functional Capacity
References
42
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. ADJ9201223
Regular
Feb 06, 2020

JOHN INMAN vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant permanently and totally disabled. The defendant challenged the vocational expert's opinion, arguing it was based on an inconsistent Residual Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) by the Agreed Medical Examiner. The Board rescinded the award, finding the FCE results were a "rough estimate" and ordered a new, accurate FCE to clarify the applicant's permanent disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Total DisabilityResidual Functional Capacity EvaluationAgreed Medical ExaminerVocational ExpertScheduled RatingOgilvie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.LeBoeuf v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Gainful EmploymentLabor Market Access
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 2,754 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