Case Notes

We love results.

As we work with each client, our focus is not just on handling another case or navigating a complex system.  We focus on getting the best possible results for our clients.  We do not settle for less, and we exhaust every opportunity as we fight for your benefits.  Here are a few examples of results that we have obtained in previous cases.

*Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
the-process-header

Claimant wins benefits back to 2008

Claimant, currently 45 years old, received a favorable decision based on an application for Supplemental Security Income filed on  July 8, 2008.    Claimant first appeared at a hearing unrepresented and an Administrative Law Judge denied her claim.  The claim was appealed by Olinsky Law Group to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida where it was remanded back to the Administrative Law Judge for a new hearing, resulting in a Fully Favorable decision.  Claimant was represented by attorneys Howard D. Olinsky, Esq. and  Eileen R. Kinney Esq.


the-process-header

BANKS vs Commissioner of Social Security

A remand from the Northern District of Georgia due to the ALJs violation of the treating physicians rule.   Howard Olinsky argued with assistance from Ted Wicklund on the brief.  Magistrate Judge Fuller wrote in his recommended decision which was adopted by District Judge Hon. Eleanor L. Ross.  “In summary, the undersigned finds that the ALJ erred when he failed to explain why certain limitations found by Dr. Cooper and Dr. Piat were not included in the RFC assessment, despite the fact that the ALJ gave their opinions significant weight. See SSR 96-8p. The ALJ also committed error when he did not offer any reasons for giving limited weight to a psychological evaluation performed by Dr. McAdams and a psychiatric review technique form completed by Dr. Cooper. See Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179; Lucas v. Sullivan, 918 F.2d 1567, 1574 (11th Cir. 1990) (recognizing that the ALJ must state the weight accorded to each item of evidence and the reasons therefore); Gibson v. Heckler, 779 F.2d 619, 623 (11th Cir. 1986) (same). Without any explanation from the ALJ on these issues, the court is unable to determine whether the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and based upon proper legal standards. See Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179. Furthermore, the undersigned finds that the ALJ’s errors were not harmless.”


the-process-header

6.5.14  

Orlando, Florida,  ALJ  Mary C. Montanus awarded Claimant benefits and reopened a prior claim.  The ALJ found Claimant suffers from intellectual disability, asthma, obesity, hypertension and a history of alcohol abuse.  At the request of counsel, a post-hearing consultative examination was ordered to determine Claimant’s level of intellectual functioning.  Based on the results a supplemental hearing was requested.  A medical expert testified at the supplemental hearing and counsel was able to effectively argue for claimant to be found disabled based on the claimant’s listed impairments.  Eileen R. Kinney, Esq., was the representative.