Lofthouse v. Bisignano, 2:24-cv-00562

Plaintiff Lisa L. sought judicial review after her claim for Social Security disability insurance and supplemental security income was partially denied.
After an initial 2019 denial, her case was twice remanded, first by the Appeals Council and then by the district court, primarily due to the ALJ's failure to properly consider her treating physician’s opinion.
On the second remand, a new ALJ found her disabled only as of November 22, 2022, after her insured status for Title II benefits lapsed (December 31, 2021), making her ineligible for disability insurance benefits.
Lisa L. argued further proceedings would serve no useful purpose and sought immediate benefits, while the Commissioner admitted error but argued for remand for additional proceedings.
The Agency conceded legal error in evaluating Lisa L.'s medical evidence under the inapplicable post-2017 regulations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether remand should be for immediate award of benefits or further proceedings	Full record supports immediate award; no further factfinding needed	Conflicting evidence remains, ALJ must weigh evidence under correct law	Remand for further proceedings required due to unresolved factual disputes
Whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standard in weighing treating physician’s opinion	ALJ failed to apply proper pre-2017 standards for medical opinion	Admits ALJ applied wrong standard, requiring remand	ALJ must reevaluate evidence under proper legal framework
Whether the record establishes disability as a matter of law	Record fully developed and unequivocal	Conflicting medical opinions exist	The record does not conclusively establish disability
Whether the case should be marked "critical" for expedited handling	Should be labeled to speed up proceedings	Agency should follow its own criteria, not court's	Expedite case, but not classified as "critical"

Ragland v. Shalala, 992 F.2d 1056 (10th Cir. 1993) (court has discretion to remand for further proceedings or award benefits when reversing the Commissioner)
Salazar v. Barnhart, 468 F.3d 615 (10th Cir. 2006) (courts weigh the utility of further factfinding vs. immediate benefits)
Nielson v. Sullivan, 992 F.2d 1118 (10th Cir. 1993) (claimant's advanced age can inform benefit award appropriateness)
Sorenson v. Bowen, 888 F.2d 706 (10th Cir. 1989) (immediate award of benefits appropriate only where record fully supports disability as a matter of law)