Federal court remand july 15th. How are they different?

[Redchico24]

Just curious if anyone has been through a remand hearing from the federal court. How is it different from your original hearing? Thanks in advance for all your insights

[SFVLance]

The only real difference in mine was the ALJ was corrected/guided by the federal district court order, so there was no dispute over those areas. We did have a different ME, who actually agreed with my own doctors, so everything was disposed of rather quickly. VE was present but not needed.
 
Other than that, there were no other differences from original hearing (both were in-person, about 4 years apart I think). After ALJ swore me in, she acknowledged and summarized the findings of the FDC.

[Redchico24]

That is just excellent. Thanks for the inside perspective!!

[Just Me]

The remand tells the ALJ what to address. In some cases it is like a new hearing. Like the first one did not happen
In other cases, the ALJ only address specific things.

[Redchico24]

For me they told her to lend more weight to my treating physician's findings. So i am hoping she does this time

[Team Bob]

The biggest difference in mine was that there was a medical expert called to testify.  This basically won my case, as he found me meeting a couple of blue book listings and the judge ended it right there with a bench decision.  I really think there should be a medical expert at *every* hearing.

[Redchico24]

Oh that was awesome. I hope they have one at my hearing. I really need this to come through.

[Just Me]

Having a, medical expert at a hearing does not mean a automatic bench decision. The fact the claimant was found to meet a Blue Book Listing played a big part. But a ALJ does not need a medical expert for that.