Amanda Arnold Sansone
How Judge Sansone rules, drawn from 36 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Sansone decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Social Security medical-opinion regulations (revised, claims filed on/after 2017-03-27): treats a treating provider's bare recommendation (e.g. 'elevate your legs') as NOT a 'medical opinion' the ALJ must articulate weight for, because it is a treatment note rather than a function-by-function judgment about what the claimant can still do. A claimant relying on such notes, without a true functional opinion stating frequency/duration, will not unseat the RFC.
“the treatment recommendation does not constitute a 'medical opinion' as contemplated by the revised Social Security Regulations governing the articulation of medical opinions for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017.”
Substantial-evidence deference: declines to reweigh the record or substitute judgment for the Commissioner's, affirming the RFC and the ALJ's reliance on vocational-expert testimony where supported, 'even if the evidence preponderates against the decision.' An argument that the record 'could support a different RFC determination' is outside the scope of review.
“Ms. Estrada Fontanez's argument here is, in essence, that there is evidence in the record that could support a different RFC determination. This is outside of the scope of this court's review.”
Mental-health opinion evidence: ordinary observations such as proper grooming, cooperation, and intact cognition do not necessarily conflict with severe anxiety, agoraphobia, or panic attacks. When discounting an examiner, the ALJ must connect the cited evidence to the claimed inconsistency and address material examination notes rather than focusing only on a benign mental-status snapshot.
“The ALJ focused mostly on the mental status evaluation and largely ignored Dr. Malowitz’s other examination notes”
Record development: a further consultative examination is not required merely because an existing examiner did not supply a functional-capacity statement. Sansone asks whether the existing testimony, reports, medical records, and agency findings were sufficient for an informed decision.
“Because the record contains sufficient evidence for the ALJ to make an informed decision, the ALJ was not required to order a consultative examination.”
Veterans Affairs disability evidence: when the older Social Security rules apply, identifying differences between the two agencies' standards is not enough. The administrative law judge must meaningfully analyze the rating and its supporting evidence rather than dismissing it in generalized terms.
“The ALJ failed to demonstrate that he considered Ms. May’s VA disability rating with sufficient scrutiny. This failure warrants a remand.”
Medical-opinion articulation: summarizing an opinion does not substitute for explaining both supportability and consistency. A decision that omits either relationship may require remand even when the administrative law judge discusses the medical source elsewhere.
“the ALJ failed to comply with the regulation when considering Dr. Goldstein’s opinion and the decision is not supported by substantial evidence.”
Record-development failures are material when promised prior-application evidence is withheld from counsel and the remaining record contains medical gaps. Sansone requires a record complete enough for counsel to review and for the agency to make a fair assessment.
“the ALJ failed to fully and fairly develop the record, and the evidentiary gaps in the record result in unfairness.”
Headache claims require an express evaluation of frequency, duration, severity, treatment, and the other criteria identified in the governing agency ruling. A conclusory reference to the ruling does not permit meaningful judicial review.
“The ALJ’s decision provides no discussion about Ms. Harris’s headache frequency, duration, or severity in accord with SSR 19-4p.”
Medication side effects: a finding that the record contains few or no reported side effects will not stand when treatment notes document the alleged problem. Sansone remanded where seizure-related records contradicted the administrative law judge's stated premise.
“side effects to prescribing doctors within the evidence” is not supported by substantial evidence.”
Futile amendment after a legally defective theory: in a consent consumer-credit case, Sansone dismissed with prejudice where all seven claims depended on a repeatedly rejected theory and the pleaded statutory and common-law elements independently failed.
“It would be futile to allow Mr. Zickafoose to amend his complaint.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons stated, the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED, and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner.”
“For the reasons stated, the Commissioner’s decision is REMANDED, and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.”
“Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Mr. Storch’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs under the EAJA (Doc. 29) is GRANTED. Mr. Storch is awarded $7,441.21 in attorney’s fees and $400.00 in costs.”
“For the reasons stated, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment for the Commissioner and close the case.”
“For the reasons stated, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED, and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner.”
“The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter final judgment for the Commissioner and close the file.”
“Ms. Curtiss’s Motion for a Hearing (Doc. 18) is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Mr. Juarez’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs under the EAJA (Doc. 20) is GRANTED. Mr. Juarez is awarded $1,002.94 in attorney’s fees and $400.00 in costs.”
“Accordingly, the Commissioner’s unopposed motion for entry of judgment with remand (Doc. 20) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and close the file.”
“Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Ms. Cannon’s motion for attorney’s fees under the EAJA (Doc. 24) is GRANTED. Ms. Cannon is awarded $10,007.70 in attorney’s fees.”
“Accordingly, the Commissioner’s unopposed motion for entry of judgment with remand (Doc. 18) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and close the file.”
“Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Ms. Curlee’s motion for attorney’s fees under the EAJA (Doc. 22) is GRANTED. Ms. Curlee is awarded $9,336.87 in attorney’s fees.”
“Accordingly, the Commissioner’s unopposed motion for entry of judgment with remand (Doc. 18) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and close the file.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled civil docket is centered on consent Social Security appeals, supplemented by fee requests and other consent matters. It is descriptive rather than comprehensive, and no authoritative case-disposition baseline was available for the period.
Draft for Judge Sansone with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Sansone, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Sansone's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace