The court reversed a disability denial but ordered further proceedings because medical conflicts and work-history questions remained.
The court remanded a disability claim and required meaningful medical development, including best efforts to obtain a physician examination.
The court ordered a new disability hearing after finding errors in the severity analysis and rejection of claimant testimony.
The court remanded because the ALJ failed to account for mild mental limitations and adequately evaluate medical-opinion evidence.
A Northern District court reversed an SSI denial because the agency inadequately assessed medical evidence and failed to resolve major discrepancies in national job estimates.
A Central District court reversed a disability denial because the agency relaxed physical restrictions preserved by an earlier judicial remand without adequate justification.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court held that DALA may decide a provider dispute over EOHHS’s interpretation of a valid rate regulation and that a 23-year delay did not require dismissal.
The Commonwealth Court held that emailed administrative appeals were timely filed because DHS regulations allow receipt “in another manner” beyond postal delivery.
The Commonwealth Court set aside an upset tax sale because the bureau failed to use readily available county records to locate the owner after certified notice was returned.
The court affirmed a disability-benefits denial because substantial evidence and valid credibility reasons remained despite limited errors in the ALJ’s analysis.
A disability denial was reversed because the ALJ misread medical testimony and improperly treated travel as proof of six-hour standing and walking capacity.
A visa application in administrative processing remained judicially reviewable, but the family had not yet alleged an unreasonable agency delay.
A federal district court affirmed the denial of SSI disability benefits, holding that documented evidence of malingering excused the ALJ from needing “clear and convincing” reasons to discount the claimant’s testimony.
A federal judge ruled the No Surprises Act gives out-of-network providers no right to sue in court to enforce arbitration awards against health plans like Blue Shield of California.
A federal magistrate judge reversed and remanded a Social Security disability denial because the ALJ’s decision never addressed the claimant’s mother’s testimony about her frequent, fluid-triggered need to self-catheterize.
A federal magistrate judge ruled that ICE violated due process by re-detaining a noncitizen without notice before locking him up, but ordered only a prompt bond hearing rather than immediate release given his post-release arrest record.
The CPUC could not retroactively demand millions under reimbursement rules that failed to give fair notice and that agency staff themselves viewed as unclear.
The Ninth Circuit required immigration authorities to consider a sworn claim that counsel’s advice caused a missed removal hearing.
The court ordered an immediate Social Security benefits award after finding that the agency mishandled extensive migraine evidence and testimony establishing work-preclusive absences.
The court affirmed denial of Social Security benefits because medical evidence, treatment response, daily activities, and part-time work supported discounting the claimant’s symptom testimony.
The court reversed a Social Security denial and ordered further proceedings because the agency inadequately evaluated claimant testimony and a treating provider’s opinions.
The court denied and partly dismissed an immigration detainee’s bond challenge because hardship equities were outside its limited review and the administrative appeal remained pending.
The court reversed a disability-benefits denial because the agency inadequately discounted the claimant’s symptom testimony and the error affected the functional analysis.
The court held that an immigrant’s re-detention violated due process and required advance notice and a neutral hearing before any future re-detention.