2.7 based on 3 reviews


  1. Anonymous says:

    All of the vitriolic comments about Sally C. Reason are justified. In her decisions she does make false representations of diagnoses and prognoses by claimants’ physicians. She does misrepresent claimants’ testimony regarding daily activities. She does cherry pick from the records. She does invent damning “facts” for which there is no evidence in the record.
    In the case with which I am intimately familiar, Sally C. Reason declared the claimant “less than credible” because Claimant’s work ethic pushed her to work fulltime, with unrelenting pain, for 17 years before severe, degenerative spinal injuries and related bone diseases became unbearable at the age of 62.
    In other cases, Sally C. Reason rejected a claim because “Claimant had an extremely poor work history and showed little propensity to work in her lifetime” AND another claimant “has not had a consistent history of prior employment on a full-time basis, calling into question her motivation to work.”
    So…According to Sally C. Reason, having a “poor work history” is evidence a person isn’t disabled, while continuing to work past the onset of a degenerative disease is evidence a person isn’t disabled.
    Among Sally C. Reason’s decisions that have been overturned by the federal district court, she repeatedly has been admonished for dismissing the opinions of the treating physicians: (1) “The ALJ Failed To Properly Consider Plaintiff’s Treating Physician’s Opinion….(Reason’s) “conclusion is contradicted by the record.” –(2) “The ALJ may not substitute her lay opinion for those of the medical sources in the record.” *** “Because the ALJ failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting Dr. ______’s opinions, this Court credits them as a matter of law.”
    –(3) “The ALJ’s improper rejection of Dr. _____’s opinion and substitution of her own lay medical opinion constitutes reversible error….Indeed, it appears that the ALJ’s RFC assessment is nothing more than her own lay medical opinion.”
    IN THE PARTICULAR CASE I WITNESSED, during the hearing the Sally C. Reason asked, “Are you able to do your cooking?” Claimant: “No.” Sally C. Reason: “Have you cooked a lot more in the past and don’t do it anymore, or…?” Claimant: “Before the accident I used to cook a lot, but now I don’t ever cook.” — In her decision, Sally C. Reason reported “(Claimant) Is Able to Prepare Simple Meals.”
    Sally C. Reason GROSSLY MISREPRESENTED TESTIMONY OF CLAIMANT REGARDING TREATMENTS SHE HAS RECEIVED FOR PAIN. Sally C. Reason wrote, “The Claimant noted that no surgery has been recommended for her condition, she has not received any pain relief injections in some time.” — Sally C. Reason uses that statement to support her accusation of the Claimant’s “exaggerating” her symptoms. — (1) In that statement, however, Sally C. Reason carefully OMITS THE CONTEXTS surrounding the “no surgery” and “pain relief injections” references. Sally C. Reason carefully avoids evidence in the record that explains the trigger point injections were discontinued because they were ineffective in treating Claimant’s severe injuries; Sally C. Reason presents that as evidence that Claimant’s injuries weren’t serious enough to merit continuing the injections — the exact opposite of the truth. — (2) Sally C. Reason states “no surgery has been recommended for her condition” but omits the fact that none has been recommended because there is no appropriate surgery for Plaintiff’s injury.
    Sally C. Reason FALSELY CHARACTERIZED THE FREQUENCY AND REGULARITY OF TREATMENT BY CLAIMANT’S TREATING PHYSICIAN. Sally C. Reason declared, “There is sparse evidence of regular, ongoing treatment with Dr. _____ between 2014 and 2016.” The record, however, shows that Dr. ____ treated the claimant *18* times between 2014 and 2016, in a regular and ongoing basis.
    Sally C. Reason claimed “There are no records of diagnostic scans showing degenerative disc or joint conditions.” Earlier in her decision, however, Sally C. Reason noted, “A thoracic spine CT scan revealed multi-level degenerative changes including compression deformities and disc protrusion.” — It is impossible to argue that a CT scan which reveals “multi-level degenerative changes including compression deformities and disc protrusion” — a form of spinal disc deterioration that typically causes back pain — is not a diagnostic scan showing degenerative disc conditions.
    Sally C. Reason falsely claimed the latest CT scan shows “no further deterioration or additional spine changes.” In reality, that CT scan reveals two new compression fractures, a new disc protrusion, and degeneration of an existing compression fracture of “up to 70% anterior height loss.” While you might not be familiar with the terminology, any orthopedic surgeon will confirm those new conditions indeed represent “further deterioration or spine changes.”
    Sally C. Reason FALSELY CHARACTERIZED RESULTS of The Newest Thoracic Spine CT Scan vs. Earlier CT Scan Results. Sally C. Reason stated, “In fact, as noted above, a thoracic spine CT scan showed the same multi-level degenerative changes” as seen in an earlier CT scan. That simply is untrue. The newest thoracic spine CT scan represents the first time disc protrusion has been observed, and it represents the first appearance in the record of two ADDITIONAL compression fractures.
    Sally C. Reason Falsely Declared the Injuries to be “Unlikely to Produce Intensity and Persistence of Pain the Plaintiff Reports.” Sally C. Reason’s omission of the newly discovered spinal compression resulting in up to 70% anterior height loss conveniently makes it unnecessary for her to explain why her layman’s viewpoint of the effects of a 70% thoracic compression fracture should be accepted over that of the accepted viewpoint of the entire medical community.
    According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), “The loss of height that results from a compression fracture may lead to chronic back pain…and accelerate the degeneration of adjacent spinal segments. The back pain and associated fatigue can severely limit a patient’s quality of life….” The NIH is describing exactly the symptoms reported by the Claimant, under exactly the conditions reported by the Claimant.
    Sally C. Reason POSED A MISLEADING HYPOTHETICAL TO THE VOCATIONAL EXPERT, omitting most of the Claimant’s impairments and limitations. This is one of Sally C. Reason’s common tactics, for which she already has been reprimanded by the district court. (More on that later.)
    Sally C. Reason refused to allow Claimant’s attorney to cross-examine the 10-year retired “rent a doctor” who Sally C. Reason had arranged to testify — based upon his cursory review of the medical history — to rebut the findings of the two board certified specialists who treated the Claimant for the previous 5 years.
    Sally C. Reason used another of her favorite tactics: citing the Claimant’s “daily activities” as reason for finding her not credible. Sally C. Reason repeatedly has had her decisions overturned despite the The Ninth Circuit Court’s repeated declaration that, “The mere fact that a plaintiff has carried on certain daily activities DOES NOT IN ANY WAY DETRACT from her credibility as to her overall disability. The ALJ must explain how the claimant’s ability to perform these daily activities translates into an ability to do activities that are transferrable to a work setting.”

    Inasmuch as fewer than 1% of claimants who are denied benefits appeal in federal court, Sally C. Reason continues to use vague “daily activities” as a reason to deny benefits — knowing that more than 99% of the time she’ll get away with it.
    STILL NOT CONVINCED of Sally C. Reason duplicity in rendering her decisions? Here are two different reasons she gave for rejecting two different Claimants’ claims. —-

  2. Anonymous says:




  3. Anonymous says:

    She made false claims of no proof of disability when all of my records were brought to my trial, all records shown by my attorney.

  4. e says:

    All the Above !! she don’t give a ****. lol

  5. Anonymous says:

    unbelievably unfair, unprofessional, heartless person. People you are so correct that she should absolutely not given a power to decide peoples cases as seems like she has no clue what she is doing. i really do not want to use big words all i do is i pray to God for justice.

  6. Cia says:

    Sally Reason should not be titled as a Judge. She is a person that knows how to LIE and keep a straight face. I know that she had very low approval from 124 disposition in 2013 and the reason is because she has become comfortable in here job by getting away with her LIES. In my case since June 1,2011 she has ignored my doctors notes that I have SEVERE injury to my neck w/ medical proof of X-Ray Cervical Spine and she writes in her last Denied letter that no Doctors had mentioned that my injury was “SEVERE” and that is a LIE in black & white. She also LIES about me in her Denied letter that I go shopping few times a day, lift heavy items, doing laundry, cleaning at my life testimony and those are bunch of LIES, I told her that my 2 children are helping me with those items, also she asked me about cooking at home but I told her that we use convinience food such as take out or TV meals but she wrote in the Denial letter that I do cooking and that is Just Pure LIES. Sally Reason has no fear of LYING because there is no that could check her work, therefore each one us should file a complaint with DQS and let them know about this ALJ.
    (Division of Quality Service)
    One Skyline Tower
    5107 Leesburg Pike Suite 1605
    Falls Church, VA 22041
    Sally Reason don’t realize that for many of us this is the only income we have in my case as a single dad at age 61.

  7. Still Struggling says:

    ALJ Reason denied my claim, and reading the unfavorable decision letter, it’s shocking how much she cherry-picked the information, ignored my long-time treating physician’s opinion for two doctors that I had never met, and disregarded the VE testimony. Easy to see why her denial rate is so high.

  8. Anonymous says:

    One of the toughest ALJs in California and all the West. As a SSD lawyer, I have seen most of the ALJs west of the Mississippi. She is probably the toughest.

    It is not just that her approval rate is low. She just makes it difficult for attorneys. Everything is a leading question to this ALJ. She comes off as fairly nice with a distinct Southern drawl. But she will absolutely make ridiculous decisions. Files need to be well developed to win with her. Funny that she is the chief ALJ in West LA.

    I would not say evil person like the above comment. But definitely not friendly. And more importantly, not claimant friendly at all.

  9. Anonymous says:

    A very evil person.

  10. Sally Jones says:

    This judge, Sally Reason, is the most unprofessional, crass, cruel, **** of a MORON I have ever had the MISFORTUNE to come across in my life.

    She must be the most miserable person I have EVER met, and enjoys, clearly, taking out her misery on others by using her dictatorial control over people who are SICK and WEAK.

    She is HORRIBLE and has NO HEART to speak of.

    I hope she gets SICK and dies a LONG, HORRIBLE death with an illness no doctor can ever figure out and doesn’t believe her, the way she doesn’t believe any patients who come in, out of sheer desperation, against every fiber of their being, against their pride, who have never done anything but GIVE their entire lives but, because of a stroke of bad luck, they are now desperate and truly alone, and NEED help. I have a letter from my psychiatrist, which I am positive she never read, warning her of the high risk of lethality of my situation (I have already attempted suicide, SERIOUSLY, and ONLY survived by the grace of God, unfortunately, because I am in horrible, chronic, intractable pain and don’t have a dime to my name. If healthy, I can work and make a pretty penny. But I CAN NOT WORK. She so much as called me a liar when I asked why, when my psychiatrist was insistent he be there as my witness, that – not only could he NOT come, but he would be turned away and it would jeopardize my hearing. She said she did not believe me and asked for names. I gave her 3. She said she did not believe me. This woman should be removed from the bench. She is a menace and just a ROTTEN human being. I hope she suffers a long, PAINFUL illness, and no one will help her. **** HER.

Leave a Reply

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