Case Law Update: Ware v. Commissioner — Florida Federal Court Remands SSDI Denial Over Unexamined Mild Mental Limits

What happened

On October 29, 2026, a United States magistrate judge in the Middle District of Florida reversed and remanded the Social Security Administration’s denial of disability insurance benefits in William W. Ware v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 8:25-cv-02710-AAS (Tampa Division). The court held that the administrative law judge (ALJ) did not properly evaluate the claimant’s mental impairments, even though the only mental limitations in the record were rated “mild.” The Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone, directed the Clerk to enter judgment for Mr. Ware and close the case, sending the claim back to the agency for further proceedings.

The claim and the ALJ’s decision

According to the Order, Mr. Ware applied for disability insurance benefits on November 4, 2022, alleging he became disabled on August 8, 2021, when he was 51 years old. He alleged disability due to memory loss and narcolepsy issues. His claim was denied initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing on March 25, 2025, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on April 4, 2025, and the Appeals Council denied review on August 7, 2025.

At step two, the ALJ found three severe impairments: status post non-Hodgkin lymphoma and chemotherapy treatment, monocular vision, and periodic limb movement disorder. No mental impairment was on the list. The ALJ limited Mr. Ware to a reduced range of light work and found at step four that he could return to past work described as “customer service representative, utilities,” so the claim ended there.

Why the court remanded

When a claimant presents a “colorable” claim of mental impairment, Social Security regulations require the ALJ to apply the Psychiatric Review Technique (PRT) under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a. That means rating the claimant’s limitation in four “paragraph B” areas: understanding, remembering, or applying information; interacting with others; concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace; and adapting or managing oneself. The decision must include “a specific finding as to the degree of limitation in each of the functional areas.”

The court found that did not happen here. The ALJ “did not even consider Mr. Ware’s mental impairments” at step two and gave no specific explanation of the degree of limitation in each area. Instead, in the residual functional capacity (RFC) discussion, the ALJ found two state-agency psychologists’ opinions that Mr. Ware had mild limitations in all four domains “persuasive.” The court said the ALJ “provided no independent assessment or findings” on the paragraph B criteria.

The court also held that mild, non-severe mental limitations still matter at step four. Relying on the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Schink v. Commissioner of Social Security, 935 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2019), it explained that the RFC must account for all impairments, severe and non-severe, and cannot rest on an “implicit or perfunctory finding.”

The past job made the error matter. The court looked at the Dictionary of Occupational Titles entry the job corresponds to (“investigator, utility bill complaints,” DOT 241.267-034), which involves reviewing meter records, explaining high bills to customers, and preparing correction forms. Because all four mental domains “may be necessary for this job,” the court found “no reasonable basis to suggest that the ALJ’s exclusion of mild mental impairments is harmless.” The court expressly noted it expressed no opinion on whether the ALJ should have included mental limitations in the RFC; it remanded because the analysis was not adequately explained.

What this means if you have a Social Security disability claim

Every claim turns on its own record, and this Order does not predict how any other case will come out. It is a single, non-binding district-court decision. Still, it highlights several practical points:

• Mild is not the same as irrelevant. Even mild mental limitations must be addressed. If your claim involves memory, concentration, or other cognitive or psychological symptoms, check whether the ALJ’s decision actually rates each of the four paragraph B areas.
• Adopting an opinion is not the same as making a finding. Here, calling the state-agency psychologists’ opinions “persuasive” was not a substitute for the ALJ’s own explained findings.
• Step four denials depend on the past job’s real demands. When an ALJ says you can return to prior work, compare the job’s actual duties, including the DOT description, with every limitation in your record, physical and mental.
• Put the evidence in the record early. Treatment notes, consultative exams, and statements describing memory or concentration problems give the ALJ, and later a reviewing court, something concrete to evaluate.

A remand is not an award of benefits. It sends the claim back to the agency for further proceedings, where the outcome is not guaranteed. Separately, filing a federal lawsuit challenging a Social Security denial has a strict deadline, generally 60 days from receipt of the Appeals Council’s notice under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). For an overview of the appeals process, see our Social Security disability guide. More rulings are collected on our Case Law & Industry Insights page.

If your disability claim was denied, Louis Law Group offers a free case evaluation.

Source: Order, Doc. 18, Ware v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 8:25-cv-02710-AAS (M.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2026). This article summarizes a court ruling for general information and is not legal advice. Last updated October 31, 2026.