Daniel C. Irick
How Judge Irick decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
RFC formulation under the post-2017 regs: an ALJ does NOT 'play doctor' or impermissibly substitute his own judgment by finding the medical opinions less than persuasive (on supportability/consistency) and then assessing the RFC from the record as a whole. There is no requirement that an RFC be based on any physician's opinion -- the RFC is a matter reserved to the ALJ. A claimant who argues only that the RFC fails because it doesn't track a specific doctor's opinion loses.
“an ALJ cannot substitute his judgment for that of the medical sources, but there is no requirement that an RFC must be based on a physician's opinion. ... it is the ALJ's responsibility to determine the ultimate issue of the Claimant's RFC, and not the physicians.”
Preservation / record development: a challenge to the ALJ's persuasiveness findings that is raised only perfunctorily, without supporting argument or authority, is deemed waived (McClain of Ga.); and the ALJ need not order a consultative exam, a testifying medical advisor, or interrogatories unless the claimant shows an evidentiary gap producing unfairness or 'clear prejudice' (Henry, Ellison).
“Issues raised in a perfunctory manner, without supporting arguments and citation to authorities, are generally deemed to be waived.”
Medical-opinion analysis must address both supportability and consistency. Farmer and McKiver show that discussing a source's own records can satisfy supportability but does not replace an explanation of how the opinion compares with the rest of the medical evidence; later litigation arguments cannot supply an analysis the ALJ omitted.
“The ALJ is required to discuss how a medical source’s opinion is consistent with other evidence within the record.”
Fee applicants should exercise billing judgment before filing. In Wilson, Irick cut excessive administrative-record review and excluded clerical work, awarding 41.8 hours rather than the larger request.
“If fee applicants do not exercise billing judgment, courts are obligated to do it for them”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the stated reasons, it is ORDERED that: 1. The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED; and 2. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment for the Commissioner and close the case.”
“The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED”
“The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED”
“The final decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)”
“The final decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 31) is GRANTED in part to the extent that Plaintiff’s fraud claim (Count IV) is hereby DISMISSED. The remainder of the Motion (Doc. 31) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 34) is GRANTED in part to the extent that Plaintiff is awarded 41.8 hours for this appeal representing a total fee award of $8,820.16”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled civil docket is dominated by Social Security appeals. Those cases are initially assigned to a district judge with Judge Irick handling referred matters, then reassigned to him as the final judge when the parties consent under 28 U.S.C. section 636(c). The sample contains twenty-nine consent Social Security dispositions plus a consent dismissal and fee ruling; no authoritative case-disposition baseline was available for the period.
Put Judge Irick's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Irick actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Irick's own signed orders and cites them.