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

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
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

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. 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. 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
May 26, 2000

Snyder v. Barnhart

Sharon Snyder applied for Supplemental Security Income disability benefits due to severe back pain and carpal tunnel syndrome, which was denied by the Commissioner of Social Security. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Snyder capable of "medium" work, but not her past work as a maid, and deemed her ineligible for benefits. This decision was affirmed by the Appeals Council. On appeal, the Court found the ALJ erred by not waiting for a detailed response from Snyder's treating physician, Dr. Richard Dobson, regarding her condition and Spinoscope test results, thus failing to fully develop the record. The case is remanded for the ALJ to consider this additional medical information, carefully weigh the treating physician's opinion, reassess Snyder's residual functional capacity (RFC), and re-evaluate her credibility concerning subjective complaints of pain.

Social Security DisabilityChronic Back PainCarpal Tunnel SyndromeSpinoscope TestAdministrative Law JudgeResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician RuleCredibility AssessmentRemandMedical Evidence
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cleveland v. Apfel

The case involves Richard Cleveland, a 54-year-old man, appealing the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits based on disability due to back pain and hypertension. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially denied benefits, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Council. The District Court reviewed the Commissioner's decision, focusing on the ALJ's treatment of the treating physician's rule and the development of the record. The court found that the ALJ failed to adequately develop the record by not seeking additional information from the treating physician, Dr. Small, whose opinion of disability lacked objective clinical findings. Consequently, the court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings to obtain a more complete report from Dr. Small.

Social Security DisabilitySupplemental Security Income (SSI)Disability Benefits AppealTreating Physician RuleAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ)Record DevelopmentMedical EvidenceChronic Back PainHypertensionResidual Functional Capacity
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rolon v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff Juan Rolon sought review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Social Security Disability (SSD) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The District Court, presided over by Judge Alison J. Nathan, considered motions for judgment on the pleadings from both the Commissioner and Rolon. The court found legal errors in the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision, specifically regarding the failure to develop the record by recontacting treating physician Dr. Bogard to clarify inconsistencies in her medical assessment and the improper application of the treating physician rule. Additionally, the Appeals Council erred by not considering new and material evidence from an April 2011 CT scan. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion was denied, Rolon's motion was granted, and the case was remanded for further administrative proceedings.

Social Security DisabilitySupplemental Security IncomeAdministrative Law JudgeTreating Physician RuleMedical EvidenceRemandResidual Functional CapacityDepressive DisorderBack PainConsultative Examination
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
Showing 1-10 of 5,137 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