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

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
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

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

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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Astrue

Thomas Johnson, a pro se plaintiff, sued the Commissioner of Social Security after his application for disability insurance benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) was denied. The District Court, presided over by Judge Telesca, reviewed the ALJ's decision, which found Johnson not disabled despite acknowledging his 'severe' conditions. The court determined that the ALJ improperly evaluated Johnson's schizophrenia, finding it to be a 'listed impairment' under SSA regulations, fulfilling criteria for marked difficulties in social functioning, concentration, persistence, and pace. The court concluded that Johnson's schizophrenia was independently disabling, despite his substance abuse and his own testimony downplaying his mental health issues, and thus reversed the Commissioner's decision, granting judgment to Johnson and remanding the case for calculation of benefits.

SchizophreniaDisability BenefitsSocial Security ActMental ImpairmentResidual Functional CapacityALJ Decision ReviewAppeals CouncilDIBSSIParanoid Schizophrenia
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chaffin v. Colvin

Plaintiff Kenneth Chaffin sought judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of his application for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The District Court, presided over by Judge John T. Curtin, evaluated the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision, which had found the plaintiff not disabled. The court determined that the ALJ erred in relying on vocational expert testimony that conflicted with the plaintiff's residual functional capacity (RFC). Specifically, the hypothetical presented to the expert described limitations for sedentary work, but the expert identified jobs classified as light work without reconciling the discrepancy. As a result, the court denied the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion, reversing and remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its decision.

Social Security DisabilityDisability Insurance BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeAdministrative Law JudgeVocational ExpertResidual Functional CapacityLight WorkSedentary WorkMedical OpinionsALJ Error
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gonzalez v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Julia Gonzalez initiated this action against the Commissioner of Social Security, asserting that her application for disability benefits and supplemental security income was improperly denied. Gonzalez, a 36-year-old former assembly line worker, claimed disability due to her HIV+/AIDS status, complicated by recurrent herpes simplex virus (HSV) outbreaks and chronic leg pain. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) had initially denied her application, concluding she retained the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work. However, the District Court found that the ALJ committed errors by not properly evaluating Gonzalez's impairment under specific HIV listings (14.08D2a and 14.08N) of the Social Security Act and by failing to adequately credit the medical opinions of her treating physician, Dr. Amneris Luque. Consequently, the court granted Gonzalez's motion for judgment on the pleadings, reversed the Commissioner's decision, and remanded the case for the sole purpose of calculating and paying benefits.

Social Security ActDisability BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeHIV/AIDSHerpes Simplex Virus (HSV)Residual Functional Capacity (RFC)Sedentary WorkTreating Physician RuleAdministrative Law Judge ErrorJudgment on Pleadings
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 11,708 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