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
May 16, 1989

Martinez v. Sullivan

Plaintiff, Benjamin Martinez, a 59-year-old man with limited education and a history of alcoholism and arthritis, applied for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. His application was denied initially, on reconsideration, and by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), whose decision was affirmed by the Appeals Council. Martinez sought judicial review of the Secretary's decision. The District Court affirmed the Secretary's determination that Martinez was not disabled, finding substantial evidence in the record from medical examiners and Martinez's own testimony to support his capacity for medium work.

Disability BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeSocial Security ActAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals CouncilMedical ReviewResidual Functional CapacityAlcohol DependencyArthritisAdvanced Age
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 1983

Haskin v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services

The plaintiff, Doris Haskin, contested the reduction of her Social Security Supplemental Income (SSI) payments by the Secretary due to increases in her retirement benefits. She argued that these reductions were improper, citing that her overall income was not increasing and her initial SSI eligibility determination occurred before she received retirement benefits. Additionally, Haskin claimed improper maintenance of employment records and alleged unconstitutional discrimination against her as an SSI recipient who contributed to Social Security, unlike some others. The Court affirmed the Secretary's decision, finding that the reduction was based on substantial evidence and correct statutory interpretation, as retirement benefits are categorized as unearned income for SSI. It also dismissed her equal protection claim, emphasizing the general funding of SSI and judicial deference to legislative classifications, and denied her request for a jury trial, limiting review to the substantial evidence standard.

Social Security BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeRetirement BenefitsSSI Payment ReductionEqual Protection ClaimConstitutional LawAdministrative LawSubstantial Evidence ReviewDisability IncomeGovernment Assistance Programs
References
7
Case No. E2013-01731-COA-R3-JV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2014

In Re Jordan H.

This child support enforcement action involved an appeal from a Juvenile Court decision. The trial court granted an arrearage award of $16,753.49 against the father and ordered him to pay his entire lump-sum federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payment towards the arrearage. The father appealed, arguing that SSI benefits are exempt from attachment for child support. The Court of Appeals affirmed the arrearage amount but reversed the portion of the judgment attaching the father’s SSI benefits, citing well-settled Tennessee law and federal statutes. The case was remanded for the removal of the SSI attachment.

Child Support ArrearageSSI BenefitsAttachment of BenefitsFederal Law ExemptionJuvenile Court AppealStatutory InterpretationTennessee Court of AppealsParental ObligationsSupplemental Security IncomeExemption from Garnishment
References
8
Case No. ADJ4481004 (LAO 0843231)
Regular
Nov 15, 2011

ARARAT SARKISIAN vs. VAHAN ENGIBARIAN DBA VAHAN'S ROYAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and returned the case to the trial level. The applicant sought commutation of his award to purchase a home, arguing it would benefit his Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The WCJ denied this, believing commutation wouldn't impact SSI and that buying a home wasn't in the applicant's best interest. The Board found the record insufficient and ordered applicant's attorney to consult with a Social Security law expert to clarify the impact of commutation on SSI.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCommutation of AwardSocial Security Supplemental Income (SSI)Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI)Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF)Findings and OrderWCJBest InterestHome Ownership
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maldonado Ex Rel. Maldonado v. Apfel

This opinion addresses the crucial question of whether non-attorney parents can represent their minor children in federal district court appeals concerning the denial of Social Security benefits. District Judges Chin and Hellerstein firmly rejected the government's stance, which advocated for mandatory counsel appointment or dismissal of such cases. The court differentiated this unique context from prior Second Circuit rulings, highlighting that the rationale for restricting parental pro se representation in other litigation types does not apply to Supplemental Security Income (SSI) appeals. This decision was grounded in several policy considerations, including the parents' established role in the preceding administrative process, the procedural simplicity of SSI appeals, the significant challenges claimants face in securing legal representation, and Congress's clear intent to provide timely SSI benefits to children. Consequently, the court ruled that parents are fully authorized to pursue these appeals on behalf of their children, with or without legal counsel, preventing undue delays that could negate the purpose of the benefits.

Social Security BenefitsSupplemental Security Income (SSI)Minor RepresentationPro Se LitigationParental RepresentationAdministrative AppealsDisability BenefitsJudicial ReviewFederal Court ProcedureAccess to Justice
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Long v. perales

This case involves a petitioner's appeal concerning the recoupment of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits by the New York State and Nassau County Departments of Social Services. The petitioner had received Home Relief and signed a recertification form authorizing the local agency to retain a portion of her SSI benefits. While the court affirmed the validity of the authorization form, it agreed that the State Commissioner violated administrative stare decisis by failing to explain a departure from prior determinations, thus remitting the matter for an explanation. The petitioner's application for attorneys' fees was denied.

Supplemental Security IncomeSSI BenefitsRecoupment of BenefitsAdministrative Stare DecisisAuthorization Form ValidityPublic AssistanceAppellate ReviewCPLR Article 78Attorneys' FeesFederal Regulations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kozaczka v. Schweiker

This Memorandum and Order reviews the Secretary's denial of a plaintiff's applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income (SSI). The court reversed the Secretary's denial of SSI benefits, remanding the case for calculation of benefits, as compelling medical and psychological evidence of the plaintiff's disability due to various physical and mental impairments, including an explosive personality disorder, was largely ignored by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The court also remanded the disability insurance benefits application for a determination on whether a prior 1975 finding of non-disability, which had been applied as res judicata, should be re-opened, emphasizing the need to consider the combined effect of all impairments.

Disability benefitsSupplemental Security IncomeMental impairmentPersonality disorderChronic alcoholismSeizure disorderEmphysemaRes judicataMedical evidenceALJ error
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 1994

Thorington v. Shalala

Plaintiff sought judicial review of the final decision by the Secretary of Health and Human Services denying her disability insurance and supplemental security income (SSI) benefits. Magistrate Judge Carol E. Heckman issued a Report and Recommendation, proposing to deny the Secretary's motion for judgment on the pleadings and grant a motion for remand. District Judge Arcara conducted a de novo review and adopted the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations. The court found that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) improperly disregarded substantial evidence from the plaintiff's treating physician and relied on insufficient medical opinion. The case is therefore remanded to the Secretary for further proceedings regarding both disability insurance and SSI benefits applications.

Disability BenefitsSSI BenefitsDegenerative Disc DiseaseChronic PainSedentary WorkTreating Physician RuleALJ ErrorRemandSocial Security ActMedical Evidence
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brothers v. Colvin

Plaintiff, who commenced this action in 2016, sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's decision to deny his application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The plaintiff had his SSI benefits terminated in 2013 after an age 18 redetermination, despite suffering from obesity, asthma, and a learning disability. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an unfavorable decision in 2014, which the Appeals Council upheld in 2015. The U.S. District Court, presided over by Judge Mae A. D’Agostino, found that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the plaintiff's claim under the Listed Impairments of § 12.05 (Intellectual Disability) and did not adequately address evidence of adaptive functioning deficits. Consequently, the court vacated the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

SSI BenefitsDisability DeterminationSocial Security LawIntellectual Disability EvaluationIQ TestingAdaptive FunctioningObesity ImpairmentAsthma ImpairmentLearning DisabilityRemand Order
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosa v. Astrue

Ludina Rosa sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision to deny her claim for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Rosa had a complex administrative history, including multiple SSI applications and a prior decision by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) finding her disabled for a specific period but not for the period prior to October 1, 1986. The Commissioner moved to dismiss Rosa's complaint challenging the ALJ's pre-1986 disability finding. The court, presided over by a United States Magistrate Judge, reviewed the Commissioner's motion and found that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial medical evidence, including findings from various doctors indicating Rosa's capacity for light work. Therefore, the Commissioner's motion to dismiss was granted.

Disability benefits appealSocial Security AdministrationSSI benefits denialFederal court reviewAdministrative Law Judge decisionResidual functional capacityMedical vocational guidelinesTreating physician rule exceptionSubstantial evidenceLight work capacity
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 95 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