Hines v. Barnhart, 453 F.3d 559 (July 11, 2006)(4th Cir. 2006). Sickle Cell Disease. The district court properly reversed the ALJ’s ruling and awarded disability benefits to Mr. Hines. The ALJ applied an improper legal standard to discredit the treating physician’s opinion and refused to credit unrebutted testimony that plaintiff could not work an eight hour day. Finally, the ALJ relied upon expert testimony that lacked a factual foundation. Because the record establishes Hines’ entitlement to benefits, we will award benefits without remand. See Crider, 624 F.2d at 17.
1. Applicant was entitled to rely exclusively on subjective evidence to prove that his pain was was so continuous and severe that it prevented him from working an eight hour day;

2. Applicant did not have capacity to function at any residual functional capacity that required working an eight hour day or its equivalent;

3. Opinion of vocational expert was not relevant.

Winning SSI Disability Cases

Wick v. Barnhart, 173 Fed. Appx. 597 (9th Cir. 2006)(Substantial evidence did not support ALJ's determination that claimant's examination indicated malingering, and 2. ALJ did not have substantial evidence to find that the medical record clearly established that claimant's mental impairments were nonsevere).

Winning Social Secuirty Disability Cases
compiled by Mark Anthony Given
Copyright 2006 Markamania

Chuculate v. Barnhart, 170 Fed.Appx. 583 (10th Cir. 2006)(Vocational expert's ommission warrant remand)(Hepatittus).
Madrid v. Barnhart, 447 F.3d 788 (10th Cir. 2006)(ALJ erred in not requesting claimant's rheumatoid factor test results).
Turner v. Barnhart, 427 F.Supp.2d 885 (SDIowa 2006)(Vocational experts response to hypothetical question did not provide substantial evidence supporting decision claimant was not disabled).
Crider v. Barnhart, 427 F.Supp.2d 999 (D.Col. 2006)(ALJ finding not supported).
Pierce v. Barnhart, 440 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2006)(Attorney fees).
McGraw v. Barnhart, 450 F.3d 493 (10th Cir. 2006)(First impression; whether the SSA allows the district court to award attorney's fees to claimants counsel when the court remands a Title II SS disability case for further proceedings and the Commissioner ultimately determines that the claimant is entitles to an award of past due benifits. We conclude that 406(b)(1) does permit an award).
Sincavage v. Barnhart, 171 Fed.Appx. 924 (3rd Cir. 2006)(substantial evidence did not support finding that claimants PANIC ATTACKS were not a severe impairment).
Maresh v. Barnhart, 438 F.3d 897 (8th Cir. 2006)(ALJ's conclusion that claimant was able to work despite his mental impairment and personality disorder was not supported by the evidence).
Swope v. Barnhart, 436 F.3d 1023 (8th Cir. 2006)(ALJ should have referred to claimants limited intellectual functioning in hypothetical posed to vocational expert)(remand).
Smith v. Barnhart, 435 F.3d 926 (8th Cir. 2006)(substantial evidence did not support ALJ's conclusion that claimant had residual functionial capacity to perform light work).
Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. 2005)(ALJ had duty to supplement claimant's medical record, to extent it was incomplete, before rejecting claim at step-two; ALJ lacked substantial evidence to make step-two finding of no medically severe impairment, given objective evidence in record).
Fischer-Ross v. Barnhart, 431 F.3d 729 (10th Cir. 2005)(ALJ did not discuss the evidence or his reasons for determining that claimant was not disabled at step three).
Maresh v. Barnhart, 431 F.3d 1073 (8th Cir. 2005)(ALJ's conclusion that claimant was able to work despite his mental impairment and personality disorder was not supported by substantial evidence).


10:23 AM 8/15/2006
Wiseniewski v. Barnhart, 173 Fed. Appx. 158 (3rd Cir. 2006)(Substantial evidence did not support ALJ's finding that Commissioner satisfied burden to show that appellant could perform other work in the economy).