Pay in 4 interest-free payments of $18.75 Learn more
Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Nov 7 - Nov 12
Rulings addressed: none
4) The ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff can return to his past relevant work as a security officer and security guard are not supported by substantial evidence
2025) (Opinion by U
Past relevant work – as generally performed
Checklist of arguments to make in your cases
I. A. v. O’Malley (D.N.J. Apr. 26, 2024) - mischaracterization of VE testimony, borderline age, RFC, medical opinion Rulings addressed: noneI. A. v. OMalley, Case No. 1: 23 20999 RBK (D. N. J. Apr. 26, 2024) (Order by U. S. District Judge Robert B. Kugler) Briefs for purchase: Plaintiffs Brief and remand order Topics addressed: RFC required findings RFC lack of support for findings Age categories mechanical application Vocational testimony mischaracterization of record Remand for an award of benefits delay Rulings addressed: Social Security Ruling 96 8p Social Security Ruling 96 9p Social
US$ 148.47
US$ 139.97
US$ 107.47
US$ 169.97
US$ 194.97
US$ 134.97
