green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 13×
71.4 score
G Cite
cited 9× by 9 distinct cases, 2019–2026 · 5 courts ·
…the alj was not required to accept the answer to a hypothetical question that included limitations claimed by plaintiff but not accepted by the alj as supported by the record.
at p. 1214
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
A.M. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security
the alj was not required to accept the answer to a hypothetical question that included limitations claimed by plaintiff but not accepted by the alj as supported by the record.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Towers v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
the alj was not required to accept the answer to a hypothetical question that included limitations claimed by plaintiff but not accepted by the alj as supported by the record.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Frazer v. Social Security Administration
the alj was not required to accept the answer to a hypothetical question that included limitations claimed by plaintiff but not accepted by the alj as supported by the record
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Bernard v. Social Security Administration
the alj was not required to accept the answer to a hypothetical question that included limitations claimed by plaintiff but not accepted by the alj as supported by the record.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Topham v. Kijakazi
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
the hypothetical should include all-and only-those impairments borne out by the evidentiary record . . . the alj was not required to accept the answer to a hypothetical question that included limitations claimed by plaintiff but not accepted by the alj as supported by the record.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Paloutzian v. Kijakazi
the alj was not required to accept the answer to a hypothetical question that included limitations claimed by plaintiff but not accepted by the alj as supported by the record.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Gillard v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
the alj was not required to accept the answer to a hypothetical question that included limitations claimed by plaintiff but not accepted by the alj as supported by the record.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Alires v. Kijakazi
the alj was not required to accept the answer to a hypothetical question that included limitations claimed by plaintiff but not accepted by the alj as supported by the record.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Box v. Saul
the alj was not required to accept the answer to a hypothetical question that included limitations claimed by plaintiff but not accepted by the alj as supported by the record.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Gafford v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of
the alj was not required to accept the answer to a hypothetical question that included limitations claimed by plaintiff but not accepted by the alj as supported by the record.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Tingey v. Saul
the alj was not required to accept the answer to a hypothetical question that included limitations claimed by plaintiff but not accepted by the alj as supported by the record.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Kramer v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
the alj was not required to accept the answer to a hypothetical question that included limitations claimed by plaintiff but not accepted by the alj as supported by the record
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Rill v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
the alj was not required to accept the answer to a hypothetical question that included limitations claimed by the plaintiff but not accepted as supported by the record.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
John Edward Bowker v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The Commissioner’s argument that NP Crespin’s “conclusions were vague because they lacked specificity with respect to vocationally relevant terms or explanation” 14 (Doc. 19 at 12) is 14 In support, the Commissioner cites to Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
P.W. v. Commissioner, SSA
The district court rejected this argument, explaining that the “‘[t]he ALJ was not required to accept the answer to a hypothetical question that included limitations claimed by [Claimant] but not accepted by the ALJ as supported by the record.’” Id., vol. 30/7307 (quoting Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 1995)). 6 Appellate Case: 24-1263 Document: 34 Date Filed: 06/11/2025 Page: 7 Ultimately, the court affirmed the Commissioner’s decision that Claimant was not under a disability within the meaning of the SSA before May 14, 2018.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Knight v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
When evaluating a vocational expert’s testimony, an ALJ is “not required to accept the answer to a hypothetical question that included limitations claimed by the plaintiff but not accepted by the ALJ as supported by the record.” Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Peterson v. Dudek
App’x 929, 931 (10th Cir. 2010). 58 Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones v.Social Security Administration
An ALJ is “not required to accept the answer to a hypothetical question that included limitations claimed by plaintiff but not accepted by the ALJ as supported by the record.” Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lance v. Kijakazi
“The ALJ was not required to accept the answer to a hypothetical question that included limitations claimed by plaintiff but not accepted by the ALJ as supported by the record.” Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Morris v. Kijakazi
Zhu v. Kijakazi, 142 S. Ct. 2838 (2022) (unpublished) (quoting Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 1995)). 85 See CAR 24 (“An individual’s [RFC] is his ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite limitations from his impairments.”). 86 Id. at 25 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (f)). 87 Id. at 28 (“[T]he claimant has the [RFC] to perform light work . . . except he can never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; frequently climb ramps and stairs, balance, kneel, and crawl; frequently handle and finger bilaterally; and must avoid concentrated expos…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Maldonado v. Social Security Administration
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Further, citing Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 1995), the Commissioner asserts that the use of “moderate” and/or “marked” to assess a claimant’s ability to do work-related mental activities fail to indicate what a claimant can do in relation to the mental requirements of unskilled, semi- skilled, or skilled work.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mecham v. Kijakazi
But as she points out, the “ALJ was not required to accept the answer to a hypothetical question that included limitations claimed by plaintiff but not accepted by the ALJ as supported by the record.” Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 1995); ECF No. 30 at 3.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dragoo v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of
Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cordova v. Kijakazi
“The ALJ was not required to accept the answer to a hypothetical question that included limitations claimed by [P]laintiff but not accepted by the ALJ as supported by the record.” See Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bricker v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Sec’y Admin., 358 F. App’x 25, 32 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 1995)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Frazer v. Social Security Administration
Utah May 22, 2020); Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 1995), Dr. Papafrangos’s opinion that Plaintiff has difficulty with extended periods of walking or standing describes Plaintiff’s physical abilities “in relation to the physical exertional requirements of sedentary, light, moderate, or heavy work” and are therefore potentially useful, see Bean, 77 F.3d at 1214 ; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harris v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
The administrative law judge had to ask only about the effect of those limitations ultimately assessed; the judge did not need to ask about the effect of limitations that he didn’t believe applied.” (emphasis added) (citing Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir.1995)). 13 III.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Nofire v. Social Security Administration
“The hypothetical question [to the VE] should include all—and only—those impairments borne out by the evidentiary record.” Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 1995) (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hernandez v. Kijakazi
“The ALJ was not required to accept the answer to a hypothetical question that included limitations claimed by plaintiff but not accepted by the ALJ as supported by the record.” Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 1995) (superseded on other grounds as noted in Black v. Barnhart, No. 05-172- P-H, 2006 U.S. Dist.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Grantham v. Social Security Administration
The Court does not find error in the ALJ’s characterization of this statement as “undefined and vague.” Cf. Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 1995) (affirming where the physician’s language “does not indicate exactly what plaintiff can do in relation to the physical exertional requirements of sedentary, light, moderate, or heavy work”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Izzard v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of
Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 1995) (holding that the ALJ did not err by rejecting the treating physician’s opinion that claimant had “severe limitations” as generic because it did not delineate her functional capabilities for physical exertional requirements under 20 C.F.R. § 416.967 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Zhu v. Commissioner, SSA
But “[t]he ALJ was not required to accept the answer to a hypothetical question that included limitations claimed by [Dr. Zhu] but not accepted by the ALJ as supported by the record.” Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Anderson v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
But an ALJ is “not required to accept the answer to a hypothetical question that included limitations claimed by plaintiff but not accepted by the ALJ as supported by the record.” Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Santiago v. Social Security Administration
The Court likewise finds that these were good reasons for 8 See also Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 1995) (upholding an ALJ’s rejection of a treating physician’s opinion—which the ALJ found to be “generic and [to] not accurately assess plaintiff's true functional capabilities”— and noting that, although the opinion described plaintiff’s limitations as “severe,” it did not “indicate exactly what plaintiff [could] do in relation to the [applicable] requirements of sedentary, light, moderate, or heavy work”). discounting the remining portion of Dr. Wynne’s o…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dziak v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
See Smith v. Colvin, 821 F.3d 1264, 1270 (10" Cir. 2016); Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10™ Cir. 1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sanchez v. Social Security Administration
Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (0th Cir. 1995))].
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wills v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
While “[a]n ALJ is required to accept and to include in his hypothetical questions limitations supported by the record,” Vail, 84 F. App’x at 4 , an ALJ is not required to accept the answer to a hypothetical question that includes limitations claimed by a plaintiff but not accepted by the ALJ as supported by the record, Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Doxtator v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of
Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ritter v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Indeed, the ALJ’s hypotheticals to the VE must contain only those impairments borne out by the medical evidence, see Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 1995); Evans v. Chater, 55 F.3d 530, 532 (10th Cir. 1995); she need not ask about limitations she did not believe applied, Smith, 821 F.3d at 1270 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Coldwater v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
TR. 28; , 77 F.3d at 1214.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wright v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
See SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 , at *6 (ALJ will consider other evidence in the record); 20 C.F.R. § 416.929 (c)(3) (ALJ will consider evidence of prior work record); Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1213 (10th Cir. 1995) (ALJ reasonably considered evidence that claimant quit working several years before the alleged onset date of her disability); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 , at *7 (ALJ will consider statements from non-medical sources such as family and friends).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith v. Colvin
Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir.1995). 7.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bainbridge v. Colvin
However, a hypothetical question must contain “only ... those impairments borne out by the evidentiary record.” Bean v. Chafer, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lopez v. Astrue
(Id. 18.) An ALJ is “required to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments, including symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, and any physical or mental restrictions, if ‘it is well supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and if it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.’ ” Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir.1995) (quotation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Leyba ex rel. C.J.L. v. Astrue
I note in that regard that an ALJ is “required to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments, including symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, and any physical or mental restrictions, if ‘it is well supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and if it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.’ ” Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir.1995) (quotation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Salazar v. Astrue
I note that an ALJ is “required to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments, including symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, and any physical or mental restrictions, if ‘it is well supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and if it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.’ ” Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir.1995) (quotation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jeffries v. Social Security Administration
Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Proctor v. Astrue
An ALJ is “required to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments, including symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, and any physical or mental restrictions, if ‘it is well supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic tech *1249 ñiques and if it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.’ ” Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir.1995) (quotation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hunter v. Astrue
Moreover, the ALJ was not required to include in a hypothetical question limitations “not accepted by the ALJ as supported by the record,” Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir.1995), including the sitting limitation urged by Hunter.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brescia v. Astrue
See id.; Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir.1995).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Louise Han Perez Joseph E. Perez and John Velasco Cruz
v.
Louise Han Perez Joseph E. Perez and John Velasco Cruz
94-10313.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Mar 11, 1996.
Published
Citer courts: D. Colorado (1) · W.D. Oklahoma (1)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Louise Han PEREZ; Joseph E. Perez; and John Velasco Cruz,
Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 94-10313, 94-10314 and 94-10400.
D.C. No. CR-94-00036-JSU.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
March 11, 1996.
1
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active judges of this court, it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3.