Here are 10 arguments that can be used effectively when appealing the denial of a Social Security or Supplemental Security Income disability claim by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ):
- Failure to properly evaluate mental impairment(s). The ALJ may have erred in failing to evaluate the claimant’s mental impairment and resulting functional limitations as required by 20 C.F.R §404.1520a.
- Failure to address opinions of State agency non-examining medical consultants. The ALJ failed to comply with 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(f)(2) in ignoring the opinion of the State agency non-examining physician and in failing to provide any reasons for his obvious rejection of this evidence.
- Failure to address treating physician evidence. While the ALJ referenced the opinion of the treating physician, he/she failed to comply with 20 C.F.R. §404.1527 in not providing any reasons for his/her rejection of the treating physician’s opinion.
- Failure to address other medical opinions of record. The ALJ committed reversible error in failing to provide any reasons for his/her rejection of the of the opinion of Dr. XXX whose opinion conflicts with the ALJ’s residual functional capacity (RFC) finding.
- Failure to make a proper credibility finding. The ALJ committed reversible error in failing to comply with SSR-96-7p and 20 C.F.R. §404.1529 in failing to evaluate the claimant’s subjective complaints.
- Failure to properly assess the claimant’s RFC. The ALJ committed reversible error in failing to comply with SSR-96-8p in assessing the claimant’s RFC.
- Failing to properly consider the mental and physical demands of the claimant’s past work. The ALJ committed reversible error in failing to comply with SSR 82-62 in not discussing the specific mental and physical demands of the claimant’s past relevant work prior to summarily determining that he/she can return to that work.
- Failure to obtain vocational expert testimony. The ALJ committed reversible error in mechanically relying on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines and in failing to obtain vocational expert testimony.
- Failing to comply with the HALLEX procedures in soliciting post-hearing evidence. The ALJ failed to comply with the procedures set forth in HALLEX I-2-5-42 in failing to transmit the proposed interrogatories to the claimant prior to submission to the physician, or in failing to proffer the new evidence to the claimant.
- Mischaracterization or misstatement of the record in some significant degree.
Source: Winning Appeals Council Arguments, 4th Ed., by Sarah H. Bohr. (A great resource!)