Kimberly A. Swank
How Judge Swank decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Social Security appeals, Swank looks for a genuine, unexplained gap in the ALJ's evaluation of the medical record or a treating source's opinion before reversing -- a bare disagreement with the ALJ's weighing of the evidence, without an identifiable legal or evidentiary gap, is not enough.
“the ALJ committed reversible error in disregarding this opinion”
She will affirm the Commissioner even where a claimant raises multiple issues on appeal, if the ALJ's five-step analysis is adequately explained and supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.
“For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is denied and Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted.”
Swank has repeatedly remanded cases where the ALJ's residual-functional-capacity finding did not account for a claimant's documented physical limitations, underscoring that the agency's function-by-function analysis must be traceable to the record, not assumed.
“ORDER granting Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and denying Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. This case is remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) for further consideration.”
Procedural preferences
In her consent-jurisdiction Social Security docket, Swank regularly holds oral argument on the parties' cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings before ruling, rather than deciding on the briefs alone.
“On October 31, 2018, the court held oral argument in the matter.”
When the Commissioner itself moves for a voluntary remand, Swank grants it promptly, often the same day, without requiring further briefing on the merits.
“ORDER granting 27 Consent Motion to Remand this case to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 USC 405(g) for further action.”
Cautions
Swank dismisses a Social Security appeal without prejudice for failure to prosecute when a pro se claimant does not respond to a show-cause order after repeated extensions, rather than letting a stale case sit indefinitely.
“Plaintiff has not responded to the court's show cause order, and the twice extended deadline to respond expired almost two months ago. Accordingly, the court hereby DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE due to Plaintiff's failure to prosecute or to comply with this court's orders.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDER denying 13 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting Defendant's 21 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and AFFIRMING the Commissioner's decision.”
“ORDER denying 22 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting Defendant's 29 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and affirms the Commissioner's decision.”
“ORDER granting 25 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and denying 27 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and REMANDING this case to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four for further consideration.”
“ORDER granting Plaintiff's 29 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying the defendant's 31 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and REMANDING this matter to the Commissioner for further consideration pursuant to sentence four of 42 USC 405(g).”
“ORDER granting Plaintiff's 26 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying the Defendant's 30 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and REMANDING this case to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 USC 405(g) for further consideration.”
“ORDER granting the Plaintiff's 33 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying 39 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and REMANDING this case to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 405(g) for further consideration.”
“ORDER granting the plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 19 and denying the defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 23 and remanding the case to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) for further consideration.”
“ORDER granting 15 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying 19 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and REMANDING this case to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 USC 405(g) for further consideration.”
“ORDER granting Plaintiff's 30 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and denying Defendant's 31 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. This case is remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) for further consideration.”
“ORDER granting Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying Defendant's 13 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and remanding this case to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 USC 405(g) for further consideration.”
“ORDER granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 29, denying the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 31, and the case is remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) for further consideration.”
“ORDER denying Plaintiff's 15 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and granting the defendant's 17 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Swank's enumerated docket shows a sustained run of consent-track Social Security disability appeals from her 2013 appointment through her current caseload, alongside a substantial criminal-duty docket (initial appearances, search-warrant applications, and detention proceedings in magistrate-numbered cases) that generates few written, groundable rulings. Twenty-five Social Security appeals sampled across her tenure were decided or resolved by her directly under 636(c) consent, overwhelmingly ending in a remand to the Commissioner for further proceedings, with a smaller share of outright affirmances and one dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Put Judge Swank's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Swank actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Swank's own signed orders and cites them.