The Auburn, AL Social Security Disability Attorneys of Carmichael Law Group LLC are pleased to report in Spinks v. Colvin, 3:12cv1095-SRW (M.D. Ala. July 18, 2014), the Honorable Judge Walker of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama recently agreed with our position that the ALJ committed reversible error in failing to provide specific rationale for rejecting the testimony provided by the claimant. In the brief before the Court, our Alabama Disability Attorney argued that pursuant to Eleventh Circuit case law and Social Security Ruling 96-7p, if the ALJ refused to credit subjective pain testimony she must articulate specific reasons for questioning the claimant’s credibility. As the ALJ failed to provide specific reasons to reject claimant’s testimony, we specifically requested that the Court reverse and remand the case consistent with the Court’s Murray opinion. In agreeing with our position, the Court determined that “the ALJ failed…Learn More
Alabama ALJ Failed to Evaluate Opinion Evidence in Accordance with Social Security Ruling 96-6p
The Alabama Disability Attorneys of Carmichael Law Group LLC are pleased to report in Caldwell v. Colvin, Judge Capel of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama recently agreed with our position that the ALJ failed to evaluate the medical opinions of the psychological state agency consultant as required by Social Security Ruling 96-6p. In the brief before the Court, our Alabama Disability Lawyer argued that the ALJ failed to explain the weight given to the psychological expert and such failure presented legal error because the expert’s opinions were more restrictive than the ALJ found in his residual functional capacity. The Commissioner of Social Security argued that “[a]ny mistake in not explicitly stating the weight given did not harm Plaintiff, and does not provide a basis for remand.” In agreeing with our position, the Court determined that “[i]n this case, remand is necessary not simply because…Learn More
Alabama Social Security ALJ Improperly Rejected Treating Physician’s Medical Opinions
The Opelika Social Security Disability Lawyers of Carmichael Law Group LLC are pleased to report in Munroe v. Colvin, 2:13-CV-202 (M.D. Ala. May 14, 2014), the Honorable Judge Walker for the Middle District of Alabama recently determined that the ALJ committed reversible error in rejecting the medical opinions expressed by the treating physician. In our brief before the Court, we argued that the ALJ’s general statement that the treating physician opinion was ‘neither consistent with nor supported by the other evidence of record’ was not sufficient rationale when the ALJ did not indicate what specific evidence conflicted with the treating physician’s opinion. In agreeing that the ALJ’s reasoning rejecting the treating physician’s opinion was in error, the Court wrote that “[t]he ALJ’s failure to cite the specific evidence of record that he found to be inconsistent with [the treating physician’s] opinion or to state with sufficient particularity how the opinions…Learn More
Social Security Launches Process to Expedite 100% Permanent and Total (P&T) Veteran Claims
The Social Security Administration recently launched a new process to expedite disability claims by veterans with a rating of 100% Permanent and Total (P&T) from the VA. While both Social Security and VA pay disability benefits, it is important to understand that both programs have different criteria for determining whether or not you are disabled. A VA rating of 100% Permanent and Total does not automatically mean you will receive Social Security disability, as you still must meet Social Security’s definition of disability, that is: you have a mental or physical impairment(s) or combination thereof that prevents you from performing your past relevant work and work existing in the national economy for at least one year or results in death. If you are a veteran rated 100% Permanent and Total (P&T), the first step to receive expedited processing is actually filing an application for Social Security disability. To ensure your…Learn More
Alabama ALJ Erred in Evaluating Social Security Disability Claim Under Listing 12.05
The Columbus, GA Social Security Disability Lawyers of Carmichael Law Group LLC are pleased to report in Acoff v. Colvin, the Honorable Judge Capel for the Middle District of Alabama recently determined that the ALJ erred in the evaluation of the claimant’s mental retardation and Listing 12.05. In our brief before the Court, we challenged “the ALJ’s determination that [the claimant did] not suffer the severe impairment of mental retardation and that [the claimant] did not meet the requirements of Listing 12.05.” In agreeing that the ALJ erred in denying benefits, the Court wrote that it was “unable to fully review the ALJ’s determination here, as it appears the ALJ failed to apply the proper criteria in evaluating whether Plaintiff met the requirements of Listing 12.05. The Court finds that remand is necessary where; in this case, Plaintiff appears to have met the criteria for the Listing.” We look forward…Learn More
ALJ Failed to Properly Refute the Treating Physician’s Medical Opinions
We are pleased to report in Bland v. Colvin, the Commissioner of Social Security agreed that the ALJ failed to properly refute the medical opinions expressed by the claimant’s treating physician. After the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision in which the Appeals Council upheld, we are very happy that the Commissioner finally recognized the clear error of law advanced in our brief and agreed to a joint motion to remand pursuant to sentence four. Pursuant to the Court’s Order, upon remand our client will receive a new administrative hearing where the ALJ is specifically ordered to properly evaluate the opinion evidence of record. If you live in Alabama or Georgia and the Appeals Council has recently denied your request for review of the ALJ’s unfavorable decision, our Social Security Disability Attorneys would be delighted to review your matter to see whether or not we could help you file a civil…Learn More
New Social Security Compassionate Allowances
The Social Security Administration recently announced twenty five (25) new medical conditions that qualify for Compassionate Allowances (CAL). Social Security created the Compassionate Allowances program as a method to expedite the disability decision making process for the Americans with the most serious illnesses to ensure that they receive disability decisions within days instead of months or years. The twenty five (25) new Compassionate Allowances Conditions are, as follows: 1. Angiosarcoma 2. Atypical Teratoid/Rhabdoid Tumor 3. Chronic Idiopathic Intestinal Pseudo Obstruction 4. Coffin- Lowry Syndrome 5. Esthesioneuroblastoma 6. Giant Axonal Neuropathy 7. Hoyeaal-Hreidarsson Syndrome 8. Intracranial Hemangiopericytoma 9. Joubert Syndrome 10. Leptomeningeal Carcinomatosis 11. Liposarcoma- metastatic or recurrent 12. Malignant Ectomesenchymoma 13. Malignant Renal Rhabdoid Tumor 14. Marshall-Smith Syndrome 15. Oligodendroglioma Brain Tumor- Grade III 16. Pallister-Killian Syndrome 17. Progressive Bulbar Palsy 18. Prostate Cancer – Hormone Refractory Disease – or with visceral metastases 19. Revesz Syndrome 20. Seckel Syndrome 21.…Learn More
Is Listing 12.05 still a viable theory for a Social Security Disability allowance?
Despite Social Security’s Listing 12.05 specifically dealing with Intellectual Disability, it seems more and more Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) either dismiss this listing or find ways around providing an allowance under it. The Social Security Disability Attorneys (Columbus, GA) of Carmichael Law Group LLC are pleased to report that in Turner v. Colvin, the United States District Court, for the Middle District of Alabama recently agreed with our position that the ALJ erred in his evaluation of Listing 12.05. In determining the ALJ failed to perform any analysis with respect to the introductory paragraph, the Turner Court noted that “the Commissioner asserts that Plaintiff did not meet the requirements of the introductory paragraph and invites the court to analyze the ‘overall record’ and make the introductory paragraph determination. The court could just as easily infer from the ALJ’s opinion that because she evaluated the requirements of paragraphs A, B, C,…Learn More
