Daniel G. Martin
How Judge Martin decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the reviewed consent Social Security decisions, Martin repeatedly required the administrative law judge to build a logical bridge from the evidence to the residual-functional-capacity and credibility findings. He also remanded when the agency discounted a treating source without adequate reasons, relied on a stale medical review, adopted limitations unsupported by medical opinion evidence, or failed to develop the record. A focused challenge tied to specific unreconciled evidence was more persuasive than a general disagreement with the agency's conclusion.
“Plaintiff Anthony Tincher's Motion for Summary Judgment [17] is granted. The Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment [21] is denied.”
Procedural preferences
On referred discovery he resolves privilege/ownership questions on the substantive merits rather than reflexively: he compelled production over attorney-client and work-product objections after finding the records were statutorily owned by the FDIC-Receiver or covered by the common-interest doctrine. Privilege assertions need to survive a real ownership/common-interest analysis.
“Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [97] is granted.”
On jurisdictional discovery he calibrates protective orders narrowly to need: he denied one protective-order motion as moot, granted a second to stop expansion of jurisdictional discovery, and gave a plaintiff's document-discovery request only in part — opening discovery only where there was a concrete unanswered factual question (a defendant's role in shipping the accused product to the U.S.). Tie any jurisdictional-discovery request to a specific unresolved jurisdictional fact.
“Plaintiff's Request is granted in part and denied in part.”
Cautions
He does affirm the agency when the ALJ's decision is genuinely supported. Where the medical record, state-agency physicians, and the claimant's own daily and work activities line up behind the ALJ, he will reject even a favorable medical-expert listing opinion and uphold the denial — and he treats unexplained gaps in treatment and a termination for reasons unrelated to the impairment as fair game against credibility. Three of the twenty captured Social Security dispositions are affirmances (Turner, Roque, Schoenfeld): where a perfunctory step-three analysis is harmless because the claimant never shows the listing criteria are met, or where the treating opinion is genuinely contradicted and based on subjective complaints, he affirms. A claimant whose argument is really a request to reweigh the evidence, rather than to identify a specific analytical gap, should expect to lose.
“the ALJ's decision is affirmed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, and against Plaintiff Kenneth D. Turner.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the first Motion for Protective Order is denied as moot”
“the second Motion for Protective Order is granted”
“Plaintiff's Request is granted in part and denied in part.”
“the ALJ's decision is reversed, and this case is remanded to the Social Security Administration”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [97] is granted.”
“Plaintiff Stacey Lynn Stone's Motion for Summary Judgment [14] is granted.”
“Plaintiff Anthony Tincher's Motion for Summary Judgment [17] is granted. The Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment [21] is denied.”
“Plaintiff Morgan Heuschmidt's Motion for Summary Judgment [13] is granted.”
“the ALJ's decision is affirmed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, and against Plaintiff Kenneth D. Turner.”
“Plaintiff's and the Commissioner's motions for summary judgment [12, 22] are granted in part and denied in part. The ALJ's decision is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Social Security Administration under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Reverse the Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security [34] is granted. Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g), the ALJ's decision is reversed, and this case is remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [14] is granted in part and denied in part. The ALJ's decision is reversed and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [14] and the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment [22] are both granted in part and denied in part. The ALJ's decision is reversed, and this case is remanded to the Social Security Administration under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“the ALJ's decision is reversed and this case is remanded to the agency for an award of benefits pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g).”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Judge Martin's reviewed civil work spans consent Social Security appeals and referred discovery disputes, including motions to compel and for protective orders in patent and bank-receivership matters. The available evidence does not support a representative breakdown of his full caseload.
Put Judge Martin's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Martin actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Martin's own signed orders and cites them.