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. 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. 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

Rice v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff Tammy Rice sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying her application for disability benefits. The District Court considered the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Plaintiff had severe impairments of mild degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine and mild degenerative joint disease of the knees but did not meet or equal a listed impairment. The ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform light work with restrictions, concluding she was not disabled. The Court found the Commissioner's decision supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with applicable legal standards. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Social SecurityDisability BenefitsALJ DecisionSubstantial EvidenceMedical EvidenceResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician RuleFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 12(c)Lumbar Spine
References
28
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

Lyublinsky v. Barnhart

A 73-year-old disabled plaintiff, who has received Social Security Disability (SSD) benefits since 1993, brought this action to review the Commissioner's final determination concerning his benefit rate calculation. The plaintiff argued that his benefit rate was improperly calculated, citing discrepancies in earnings records and claims of discrimination. The case has a lengthy procedural history, including multiple remands from the District Court due to issues like denial of a fair hearing and lack of legal representation. The Court conducted a de novo review of the Social Security Administration's (SSA) benefit calculations, utilizing the Average Indexed Monthly Earnings (AIME) method, and found no mathematical errors. Ultimately, the plaintiff failed to present compelling evidence to disprove the SSA's records, which are considered conclusive after a statutory period. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, the complaint was dismissed, and the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision was affirmed.

Social Security DisabilityBenefit CalculationAIME MethodAdministrative Law JudgePro Se PlaintiffFederal Court ReviewEarnings RecordsBurden of ProofRemandJudgment on the Pleadings
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
Mar 01, 2017

King v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Plaintiff Timothy E. King filed an action against the Commissioner of Social Security under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, seeking review of the denial of his applications for disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI). Plaintiff alleged disability beginning August 21, 2012, due to asthma, lower back pain, and neck pain. His applications were initially denied, and an administrative law judge (ALJ) later issued an unfavorable decision, which the Appeals Council affirmed. The District Court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding that the ALJ's determination that Plaintiff was not disabled was supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error. The court specifically addressed the weighing of medical opinions from a physician assistant and a non-treating doctor, as well as the ALJ's decision not to call a vocational expert, concluding that the ALJ's actions were proper and supported by the record.

Social Security ActDisability BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeAdministrative Law Judge DecisionResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician RuleMedical Source OpinionsSubstantial Evidence ReviewFive-Step Sequential EvaluationNon-Exertional Limitations
References
26
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2007

Bolden v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff Darrell Bolden sought disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act, claiming a continuous disability since 1992. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found him disabled from September 2003 but denied benefits for the June 2000 to September 2003 period. Bolden challenged this decision in federal court, while the Commissioner of Social Security sought to affirm it. The court, presided over by District Judge Dora L. Irizarry, denied both parties' motions for judgment on the pleadings. The case was remanded to the Commissioner for further evidentiary proceedings, citing the ALJ's failure to adequately explain the weight given to treating physicians' opinions and to fully analyze the implications of Bolden's medication non-compliance.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActSeizure DisorderPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)ALJ Decision ReviewResidual Functional CapacityMedical Non-ComplianceCase RemandFederal District CourtVietnam War Veteran
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Valder v. Barnhart

This case involves Debra A. Valder, who sought Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income benefits due to Charcot Marie Tooth Disease. After her applications were denied by an Administrative Law Judge and the Appeals Council, she challenged the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision in District Court. Plaintiff argued that the ALJ erred in evaluating her disability under Listing 11.14, discounting her treating physicians' opinions, and assessing her credibility. The District Court, presided over by Judge Larimer, affirmed the Commissioner's decision, concluding that the ALJ applied correct legal principles and that the findings were supported by substantial evidence, particularly regarding Valder's residual functional capacity for sedentary work.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActCharcot Marie Tooth DiseasePeripheral NeuropathySedentary WorkResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician RuleCredibility AssessmentAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals Council
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 11,298 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