Practice Areas
Social Security Federal Court Appeals
My practice is devoted to overturning social security disability denials in United States district and circuit courts of appeal. If SSA’s Appeals Council issued a final denial in your case, please contact us.
Do not wait to find out if we can help you. There are strict deadlines in all cases.
For professionals, including attorney and non-attorney representatives, please contact my office anytime to find out how we can help your clients and your practice. In a shrinking fee environment, we work cooperatively with administrative firms to reverse your clients’ denials and obtain you remand hearings. Get in touch to discuss us helping grow your business.
Representative Work
Cargill v. Berryhill, 762 Fed. Appx. 407 (9th Cir. 2019)
Mellow v. Saul, 830 Fed.Appx. 882 (9th Cir. 2020)
Standen v. Saul, 774 Fed.Appx. 395 (9th Cir. 2019)
Hoth v. Berryhill, 680 Fed. Appx. 616 (9th Cir. 2017)
Voorhees v. Comm'r. of SSA, 2:20-cv-00916-JDP (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Carrillo v. Saul, 1:19-cv-01767-GSA (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Westfall v. Saul, 2:19-cv-0957 DB (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Seevers v. Saul, 2:18-cv-0208 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Brady v. Saul, 2:19-cv-1116 AC (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Cave v. Comm'r. of Soc. Sec., 2:20-CV-01634 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Camargo v. Comm’r. of Soc. Sec., 2:17-cv-1733 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Morgan v. Berryhill, 2:17-cv-0240 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Gonzalez v. Comm’r. of Soc. Sec., 16-cv-05310 (N.D. Cal. 2018)
Reyna v. Berryhill, 2:15-cv-02275 (E.D. Cal. 2017)
Phillips v. Berryhill, 3:16-cv-00226 (D. Nev. 2017)
Kuharski v. Colvin, 2:12-cv-01055 (E.D. Cal. 2013)
Emmons v. Comm’r. of Soc. Sec., 2:14-cv-00488 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Bartholomy v. Berryhill, 2:17-cv-02258 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Ballard v. Berryhill, 2:18-cv-01940 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Castro v. Berryhill, 702 Fed. Appx. 620 (9th Cir. 2017)
Anderson v. Colvin, 2:14-cv-02042 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Beals v. Berryhill, 2:16-cv-00008 (E.D. Cal. 2017)
McMahon v. Berryhill, 713 Fed. Appx. 693 (9th Cir. 2018)
Magnuson v. Berryhill, 2:16-cv-2653 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Maldonado v. Colvin, 2:13-cv-385 (E.D. Cal. 2014)
Reyna v. Colvin, 2:15-cv-02275 (E.D. Cal. 2017)
Feil v. Comm’r. of Soc. Sec., 2:14-cv-2276 (E.D. Cal. 2017)
Smith v. Comm’r. of Soc. Sec., 2:13-cv-0665 (E.D. Cal. 2014)
Rand v. Colvin, 2:15-cv-1177 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Madkins v. Colvin, 2:14-cv-2750 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Means v. Colvin, 2:15-cv-0327 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Gutierrez v. Comm’r. of Soc. Sec., 2:14-cv-1968 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Emmons v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. 2:14-cv-0488 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Walker v. Colvin, 2:13-cv-01843 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Hulsey v. Colvin, 1:14-cv-01811 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Ray v. Colvin, 2:15-cv-02629, (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Larsen v. Berryhill, 3:17-cv-07312 (N.D. Cal. 2018)
Sanchez v. Berryhill, 2:18-cv-00066 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Wydner v. Berryhill, 2:16-cv-00458 (E.D. Cal. 2017)
Diaz v. Saul, 2:18-cv-1225 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Olson v. Saul, 2:18-cv-0475 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Salinas v. Berryhill, 18-cv-04522 (N.D. Cal. 2019)
Legal Malpractice
Jared Walker has litigated a wide variety of disputes for and against Fortune 500 companies, small businesses, and professionals. His practice is now devoted primarily to social security disability law. Part of that work is pursuing to verdict legal malpractice claims against unethical claimant firms. Jared has obtained or assisted with six and seven figure jury verdicts for his clients in legal malpractice cases and is available to evaluate possible options for disability claimants who are harmed by fiduciary and egregious standard of care breaches.
We do not consider malpractice claims arising from any area other than social security disability cases. We are very selective in the claims we agree to prosecute. Perceived errors against forthright, hard-working, well-intentioned representatives will be declined. Examples of these types of complaints include a representative not asking the right question to an expert, not calling certain witnesses, not citing regulations or case law in briefs to the agency, and electing not to follow a client’s instruction about strategy decisions. The cases we pursue are against firms who mislead clients and have a persistent pattern of standard of care breaches that cause denials of their clients’ benefits. Examples of these cases may include failing to submit relevant medical evidence to the ALJ; failing to disclose that an individual unlicensed to practice law will represent the client at a hearing; and mishandling of vocational evidence in step 5 cases with recurrent instances of the representative failing to meet the standard of care and hiding such errors from the client. In fiduciary disputes of this nature, we have the experience and resources to aggressively protect our clients and their families by recovering the value of their lost benefits, together with indirect or consequential damages (e.g., lost pensions), and in some situations, compensation for our clients’ severe emotional distress.
All claimants must understand we are not available to consider any malpractice claim against professionals we have an existing business relationship with. These situations present a conflict of interest that we are required to address in all instances to continue to handle any client's appeal in federal court. At the time we are hired, we ask all clients inform us if they feel they have a claim against their administrative representative. We require that clients do this so we may explain to them and obtain their informed, written consent to the fact we will not represent or advise them in any way with respect to any possible malpractice claim against an administrative representative we have a business relationship with. In cases of a conflict, we are prohibited from continuing to represent a client in any matter without an informed, written waiver. All clients should understand they have the right to seek independent counsel at all times in every matter.