Pennsylvania District Court Reverses ALJ

October 6, 2015. In this case, the claimant was denied benefits largely due to the ALJ’s determination that he was non-compliant with treatment for his impairments. We successfully argued that this determination of non-compliance should not have ended there; rather, the ALJ should have assessed whether good reasons existed for the claimant’s failure to follow a prescribed treatment. The district court held that it was the ALJ’s duty to determine whether there was a justifiable reason for the claimant’s refusal of treatment, and remanded the case for further proceedings.