Jerry’s Story: The act of “cherry-picking” evidence has long been an argument that our attorneys put forth in Federal Court when a disability hearing judge writes a decision selectively citing information showing the Social Security claimant is capable of certain activities, while ignoring evidence showing the claimant is disabled. Recently, the Northern District of New York issued a decision in Jerry’s case, where the Federal Court found that the Judge at the hearing had cherry-picked and mischaracterized evidence. Jerry was alleging disability based on a number of severe and debilitating impairments, including a deteriorated left hip, avascular necrosis of the bones in both hips, seizures, and migraines. Jerry’s representative fought hard to persuade the Hearing Judge that Jerry was unable to sustain work in the national economy. But after the Hearing Judge heard Jerry’s testimony, he issued an unfavorable decision. Thankfully, Jerry’s representative contacted our office. We filed a complaint in Federal Court to fight for Jerry and show that the Hearing Judge had committed some serious legal errors. Our attorneys looked through Jerry’s medical records, compared them to the Judge’s decision, and found a number of discrepancies. Our argument that the Hearing Judge had cherry-picked the evidence was successful. The Federal Court found that the Hearing Judge had stated that Jerry failed to get specialist treatment for his hip—but had not acknowledged that Jerry’s insurance denied his proposed surgery. The Hearing Judge also quoted Jerry’s doctor, who said Jerry’s headaches were “80% improved,” but he cut off the rest of the sentence, which also said that the headaches worsened. The Hearing Judge noted that Jerry told a doctor he could cook and prepare food but left out the part where Jerry said “when he is physically able.” The Federal Court stated that the Hearing Judge had “ignored evidence in the record relating to the frequency and severity of Plaintiff’s headaches and cited ambiguous evidence in reaching a lower level of severity of symptoms; overlooked evidence in the record suggesting that insurance issues and medical ineligibility prevented Plaintiff from pursuing more than conservative treatment for his hip; and misrepresented Plaintiff’s statements.” The Court said that it was “unable to fathom the ALJ’s rationale” and remanded the case to the Hearing Office for a new hearing. We are so proud of our Federal Court win for Jerry. His date last insured is in the past, and we were able to keep this case alive so that he can continue his fight for Social Security Disability benefits. The representative who referred the case to our office was also thrilled to get the case back for further proceedings. He is looking forward to the next hearing, where he will continue to fight for Jerry.
