Beth W. Jantz
How Judge Jantz decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
At step three, a conclusory listing finding is insufficient when the record contains evidence that could satisfy the disputed criteria. Repeated psychiatric hospitalizations and deterioration required a meaningful paragraph C analysis.
“There may be reason in the record to determine that [Plaintiff] does not meet the C criteria, but what matters are the reasons articulated by the ALJ, which in this case were quite minimal.”
A residual-functional-capacity finding must explain why credited complaints lead to some restrictions but not others. Reducing exertion to sedentary work did not, without more, account for an alleged sitting limitation.
“In other words, the ALJ did not explain why some of Plaintiff’s alleged needs for accommodation were warranted while others were not.”
Procedural preferences
Treats an evidence summary as distinct from the required analysis. A decision must show how significant evidence supports the functional finding rather than merely list the record.
“the act of summarizing the evidence is not the equivalent of providing an analysis of the evidence.”
Cautions
A remand does not decide disability. Even when the claimant identifies evidence that could satisfy a listing, the administrative law judge retains responsibility for deciding the issue on a properly explained record.
“The Court is not concluding that Plaintiff has necessarily provided evidence to satisfy the paragraph C criteria, as that determination is for the ALJ.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff's request to reverse the Commissioner's final decision [dkt. 1; dkt. 13; dkt 16] is granted and the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgement [dkt. 14; dkt. 15] is denied. The Commissioner's decision is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [dkt. 20] is granted, and the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment [dkt. 27] is denied. The Commissioner's decision is reversed, and this matter is remanded”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [dkt. 16] is denied, and the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment [dkt. 22] is granted. The Court affirms the Commissioner's final decision.”
“Plaintiffs' renewed motion for conditional certification and issuance of notice pursuant to U.S.C. § 216(b), [dkt. 194], is granted in part and denied in part, consistent with this opinion.”
“the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, [dkt. 39; dkt. 41].”
“Dr. Jokich's Motion to Compel Production of Documents Responsive to Second Request for Production based on Rush's Subject-Matter Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege [66] is denied in part and moot in part. Requests 1-4 are denied for the reasons stated in this opinion.”
“Plaintiff’s request to reverse the Commissioner’s final decision [dkt. 1; dkt. 22; dkt 26] therefore is granted and the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgement [dkt. 25] is denied. The Commissioner’s decision is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order.”
“Plaintiff’s request to reverse and remand the Commissioner’s decision (dkt. 14) is GRANTED and the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (dkt. 17) is DENIED. The Commissioner’s decision is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order.”
“Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of her Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (dkt. 16) is GRANTED and the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (dkt. 20) is DENIED. The Commissioner’s decision is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings, consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 496 days (N = 4).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 332 days (N = 24).
Two angles. (1) Her current direct/duty docket: criminal duty-magistrate work -- search and seizure warrants on mail packages and cellphones, petty offenses, and criminal complaints (US v. Palmowski/Lawrence). (2) Her consent merits subject matter: a Social Security appeal docket (DIB/SSI, 636(c) consent), FLSA and wage collective actions (Hunter v. WirelessPCS), and ERISA/MPPAA withdrawal-liability collection (Clarson v. Scorpio). Plus referred discovery on other judges' civil dockets.
Put Judge Jantz's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Jantz actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Jantz's own signed orders and cites them.