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

DiBlasi v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff Frank DiBlasi sought judicial review of a final determination by the Commissioner of Social Security, who denied his claim for Supplemental Security Income benefits, citing disability due to depression, diabetes, high cholesterol, and limb numbness. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied benefits, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Council. DiBlasi appealed, arguing the Appeals Council failed to consider new material evidence (Dr. Rinzler's assessment), erred by not remanding for clarification of a prior medical opinion, and ignored a psychiatrist's letter. The court found the new evidence cumulative and not material, and that earlier records consistently reflected DiBlasi's difficulties. Ultimately, the court determined that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's finding that DiBlasi could perform simple, routine, unskilled tasks with minimal stress and contact, and that such jobs exist in the national economy. The Commissioner's determination was affirmed.

Supplemental Security IncomeSocial Security BenefitsDisability DeterminationAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals CouncilMedical ImpairmentMental ImpairmentDepressionDiabetesGlobal Assessment of Functioning
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Feliciano v. Colvin

Plaintiff Carmen Feliciano sought judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for Supplemental Security Income. Both the plaintiff and defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings. The court examined whether the Commissioner's decision, which concluded the plaintiff was not disabled under the Social Security Act, was supported by substantial evidence. The court considered new evidence submitted to the Appeals Council, including a report from the plaintiff's treating physician, but found it inconsistent with other substantial evidence, such as reports from three consulting physicians. Ultimately, the court concluded that the Administrative Law Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and the plaintiff's cross-motion was denied, leading to a final judgment for the defendant.

Social SecuritySupplemental Security IncomeDisability BenefitsJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals CouncilResidual Functional CapacityLight WorkSubstantial EvidenceTreating Physician Rule
References
13
Case No. Docket No. 13
Regular Panel Decision

Rubet v. Commissioner of Social Security

Maria Rubet, claiming disability due to a nervous condition since October 1993, sought judicial review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Following a remand and a subsequent hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) again found Rubet not disabled, a determination adopted by the Commissioner. Rubet failed to respond to the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings and a court order. The Court, after reviewing the record and adopting the Commissioner's analysis, found substantial evidence, including medical evaluations, to support the ALJ's finding that Rubet was not disabled. Consequently, the Court granted the Commissioner's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Social SecuritySSI BenefitsDisability ClaimAdministrative Law JudgeMedical EvaluationResidual Functional CapacityMental ImpairmentAppealsJudicial ReviewCommissioner Decision
References
3
Case No. 01 CY 0301
Regular Panel Decision

Barillaro v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff Luigi Barillaro appealed the Commissioner of Social Security's decision denying him disability benefits for the period from March 11, 1994, through August 26, 1998. The District Court, presided over by Judge Dearie, found that the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) conclusion that Barillaro could perform sedentary work was not supported by substantial evidence. The court identified errors in the ALJ's assessment, including the mischaracterization of a medical expert's testimony regarding Barillaro's eligibility under Appendix 1 of the regulations and the misapplication of Medical-Vocational Guidelines concerning his work experience and literacy. The court concluded that the ALJ erred by not affording enough weight to the treating physician's opinion, which was corroborated by other medical evidence. Consequently, the court reversed the ALJ's decision and remanded the case for calculation of benefits, deeming further record development unnecessary.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActSedentary WorkCoronary Artery DiseaseAdministrative Law JudgeMedical-Vocational GuidelinesResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician RuleAngiogramDiabetic Macular Edema
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2015

Browne v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff Kenneth Owen Browne sought judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security, denying his claims for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Browne alleged disability since December 2007 due to conditions like degenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis, and carpal tunnel syndrome. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) previously found Browne not disabled, concluding he retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform light work. The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence. The court also addressed and rejected Browne's arguments regarding the ALJ's application of the treating physician rule, and alleged failures to consider his obesity and medication side effects.

Disability benefitsSocial Security ActJudicial reviewResidual functional capacityTreating physician ruleSubstantial evidenceAdministrative Law JudgeMedical evidenceObesityMedication side effects
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goldthrite v. Astrue

Plaintiff Shelly M. Goldthrite sought judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security, denying her application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The Plaintiff challenged Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Bruce R. Mazzarella's decision, asserting it lacked substantial evidence and contravened legal standards by improperly discounting her treating physician's opinion and subjective pain complaints, and by substituting the ALJ's own medical judgment. The court found that the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and that the record contained compelling evidence of disability. Consequently, the court granted the Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings and remanded the case to the Social Security Administration for calculation of benefits.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActSupplemental Security IncomeALJ Decision ReviewTreating Physician RuleCredibility AssessmentSubjective ComplaintsResidual Functional CapacityMedical-Vocational GuidelinesCervical Spondylosis
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

The case concerns Plaintiff Barbara Jean Smith's challenge to the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her disability benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI) applications. Presided over by Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford, the District Court reviewed the administrative decision. Plaintiff alleged errors by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at various stages of the disability analysis, including an incomplete consideration of her impairments and improper assessment of medical opinions. She also contended that the Appeals Council failed to consider new evidence. The Court found substantial evidence supporting the Commissioner's decision, concluding that the ALJ adequately considered all relevant impairments and appropriately weighed the medical evidence. Additionally, the Court determined that the newly submitted evidence would not have altered the outcome. Consequently, the Court granted the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Plaintiff's motion.

Social Security ActDisability BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeALJ DecisionMedical Opinion EvidenceAppeals Council ReviewMental ImpairmentsPhysical ImpairmentsResidual Functional CapacityAdministrative Law Judge
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woodford v. Apfel

Gertrude Woodford appealed the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her Supplemental Security Income Disability benefits. The Appeals Council declined review of the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision, making it final. Woodford challenged this denial, presenting new medical evidence from her treating physician, Dr. Kulak, which further clarified her pre-hearing disability and work-related limitations. The District Court found that the Appeals Council erred in not accepting this new, material evidence and that the ALJ's residual functional capacity determination and assessment of Woodford's subjective pain testimony were not supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case for reconsideration, directing the Commissioner to apply the treating physician's rule and re-examine Woodford's pain testimony.

Social Security Disability InsuranceSupplemental Security IncomeDisability Benefits DenialFractured AnkleResidual Functional CapacityAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals Council ReviewTreating Physician RuleSubjective Pain TestimonyMedical Impairment
References
14
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

Counterman v. Chater

Plaintiff Hertha Counterman, representing her minor daughter Tammy, initiated this action to appeal the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability benefits. The initial application, based on Tammy's asthma, allergies, learning disability, and later post-traumatic stress disorder, was rejected by an Administrative Law Judge and upheld by the Appeals Council. The court, led by Chief Judge Larimer, reviewed the Commissioner's decision for substantial evidence, applying the four-step evaluation process for child disability under the Social Security Act. Ultimately, the court determined that the ALJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence, concluding that Tammy's impairments did not meet the "Listing of Impairments" or constitute a "marked" functional limitation. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed.

SSI Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActChild DisabilityAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals Council ReviewSubstantial Evidence ReviewIndividualized Functional AssessmentListing of ImpairmentsAnxiety DisordersPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 11,621 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