Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Kohler v. Astrue Case Brief

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit2008Docket #791788
546 F.3d 260 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 21577 2008 WL 4589156

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
3 min read

tl;dr: The court vacated the denial of Social Security benefits, finding the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) failed to follow mandatory regulatory procedures for evaluating mental impairments, and this error was not harmless.

Legal Significance: This case underscores the mandatory nature of agency regulations, specifically the “special technique” for evaluating mental impairments in Social Security cases, and establishes that failure to comply can be reversible error.

Kohler v. Astrue Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Kathy Kohler applied for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, claiming disability due to bipolar disorder. Her application was denied. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Kohler had a “severe impairment” but concluded it did not meet or equal a listed impairment and that she retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform past relevant work. The ALJ’s decision did not explicitly apply the “special technique” mandated by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a, which requires rating the degree of functional limitation in four specific areas: activities of daily living; social functioning; concentration, persistence, or pace; and episodes of decompensation. The regulation, § 404.1520a(e)(2), requires the ALJ’s written decision to include specific findings as to the degree of limitation in each of these functional areas. Kohler appealed, arguing the ALJ erred by not following this mandatory procedure. The district court affirmed the Commissioner’s denial.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Did the Administrative Law Judge commit reversible error by failing to follow the mandatory “special technique” set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a for evaluating the severity of a mental impairment and by not including specific findings regarding the claimant’s degree of limitation in the four required functional areas in the written decision?

Yes, the ALJ erred by not following the mandatory “special technique” in Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Did the Administrative Law Judge commit reversible error by failing to follow the mandatory “special technique” set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a for evaluating the severity of a mental impairment and by not including specific findings regarding the claimant’s degree of limitation in the four required functional areas in the written decision?

Conclusion

This decision reinforces that ALJs must strictly adhere to the SSA's regulations Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi u

Legal Rule

When evaluating the severity of mental impairments in Social Security disability claims, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsu

Legal Analysis

The court determined that 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a mandates a “special technique” Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis no

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • An ALJ’s failure to follow the mandatory “special technique” in 20
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaec

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?