1 based on 2 reviews


  1. Barry J. says:

    The Appeals Council must be getting sick and tired of reversing this judge’s decisions. His analysis of the evidence on such things as a claimant’s past work is seriously flawed. He seems to lack the basic ability to understand what constitutes a “severe impairment” (slight abnormality standard) and he consistently fails to consider impairments in combination. Instead, he deals with each alleged impairment as a separate and distinct issue. This is stuff that, twenty years ago, most ALJs understood and applied in their decisions, but this judge loves boilerplate which he puts in his decisions to disguise his lack of understanding of the facts.

  2. Watcher says:

    This man is looking to deny your claim or to force you into giving up any entitlement to retroactive benefits. His determinations on credibility are inconsistent with the Rulings. His decisions are full of boilerplate but not a great deal of substance. State agency doctors are given more weight that your treating doctor. Read his decisions carefully as much that is in there doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *