McKenzie v. Heckler (1984)

green · 8 citation events across 5 courts. Showing the 7 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 7

Sort: By significance · Most recent

green HEEMAN v. Astrue (2010)

Rule Authority · C.D. Ill.

Although “the effects of medication alone would not support a disability finding, [an] ALJ’s failure to consider such testimony, in conjunction with other evidence, is error.” McKenzie v. Heckler, 589 F.Supp. 1152, 1158 (N.D.Ill.1984).

green Brown v. Barnhart (2004)

Rule Authority · E.D. Wis.

As the court noted in McKenzie v. Heckler, 589 F.Supp. 1152, 1158 (N.D.Ill.1984): While the effects of medication standing alone would not support a disability finding, the ALJ’s failure to consider such testimony, in conjunction with the other evidence, is also error.

green Felton v. Brown (1994)

Rule Authority · Vet. App.

In Edwards v. Griepentrog, 783 F.Supp. 522, 525 (D.Nev.1991), the United States District Court for the District of Nevada wrote: “[T]he EAJA does not suggest that an agency’s position is substantially justified because its policy goes years without challenge or change.” In a similar vein, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has said: “A lack of judicial precedent adverse to the government’s position does not preclude a fee award under the EAJA.” Ramon-Se…

green Stillwell v. Brown (1994)

Rule Authority · Vet. App.

See Pottgieser, supra; cf. Thompson v. Sullivan, 980 F.2d 280, 282-83 (4th Cir.1992) (government’s position was not “substantially justified” where the Secretary argued contrary to, and the agency misapplied, “well-established law” of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding the proper method to evaluate subjective complaints of pain); Salmi v. Secretary of HHS, 712 F.Supp. 566, 569-70 (W.D.Mich.1989) (“substantial justification” not found' where “…

green Pearson v. Bowen (1986)

Rule Authority · N.D. Ill.

Therefore, as in McKenzie v. Heckler, 589 F.Supp. 1152, 1160 (N.D.Ill.1984) (citations omitted): [R]emand is inappropriate for [the step 5 evaluation] because had the evaluation by the AU continued, application of the medical-vocational guidelines found in 20 C.F.R., pt. 404, subpt. p, app. 2 (1982) would have directed a conclusion of disability based on “grid” Rules [202.02 and 202.00(4)], a decision in wnich the AU has no discretion. *793 Rule 202.02 applies to individuals…

green Vascera v. Heckler (1986)

Rule Authority · D.R.I.

E.g., Sizemore, 608 F.Supp. at 913 ; McKenzie v. Heckler, 589 F.Supp. 1152, 1162 (N.D.Ill.1984).

green Bohn v. Heckler (1985)

Rule Authority · N.D. Ill.

McKenzie v. Heckler, 589 F.Supp. 1152, 1162 (N.D.Ill.1984).