Ransum v. Commissioner of Social Security

On March 13, 2026, the United States District Court issued a decision in Ransum v. Commissioner of Social Security. Plaintiff Sarah Ransum appealed the final decision of the Commissioner denying her application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Ransum alleged disability due to severe physical and mental impairments. An Administrative Law Judge found she retained the residual functional capacity to perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy. Ransum challenged the decision, arguing the ALJ improperly evaluated medical opinion evidence and failed to adequately account for her limitations in the RFC determination. The court reviewed the administrative record and cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings.

The court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings, finding the ALJ failed to properly articulate reasons for discounting certain medical opinions and the RFC was not based on substantial evidence. The plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted to the extent of seeking remand, while a pending motion for attorney fees remained under advisement pending further filing.

Whether the Administrative Law Judge properly evaluated the medical opinion evidence and whether the residual functional capacity determination was supported by substantial evidence, specifically regarding the assessment of the plaintiff's physical and mental limitations.

This case reinforces the judicial requirement that ALJs must provide specific, well-articulated reasons grounded in substantial evidence when rejecting medical opinions in Social Security disability claims. It highlights ongoing scrutiny of RFC determinations and the critical importance of proper evaluation of medical evidence, potentially influencing how the SSA conducts disability reviews and how courts review administrative decisions in the future.