Cluster 2511601
green
· 21 citation events
across 6 courts.
Showing the 13 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
For that reason, “a reviewing court must affirm the Commissioner, even when the court disagrees with the Commissioner’s decision, so long as it is supported by some evidence that any reasonable fact finder might accept.” Washington v. Barnhart, 413 F. Supp. 2d 784, 791 (E.D.
For that reason, “a reviewing court must affirm the Commissioner, even when the court disagrees with the Commissioner’s decision, so long as it is supported by some evidence that any reasonable fact finder might accept.” Washington v. Barnhart, 413 F. Supp. 2d 784, 791 (E.D.
green
Campbell v. Commissioner, SSA (2025)
For that reason, “a reviewing court must affirm the Commissioner, even when the court disagrees with the Commissioner’s decision, so long as it is supported by some evidence that any reasonable factfinder might accept.” Washington v. Barnhart, 413 F. Supp. 2d 784, 791 (E.D.
green
Waites v. Kijakazi (2023)
“Thus, there is no substantial evidence error.” Washington v. Barnhart, 413 F. Supp. 2d 784, 797 (E.D.
Tex. July 27, 2021) (Horan, J.) (citing Washington v. Barnhart, 413 F. Supp. 2d 784, 791 (E.D.
green
Hawkins v. Commissioner of Social Security (2021)
“In practice, this means that a reviewing court must affirm the Commissioner, even when the court disagrees with the Commissioner’s decision, so long as it is supported by some evidence that any reasonable fact finder might accept.” Washington v. Barnhart, 413 F. Supp. 2d 784, 791 (E.D.
green
Frank v. Barnhart (2006)
Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 , 110 S.Ct. 885, 891 , 107 L.Ed.2d 967 (1990) (“For a claimant to show that his impairment matches a listing, it must meet all of the specified medical criteria”); Selders v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 614, 619 (5th Cir.1990); Washington v. Barnhart, 413 F.Supp.2d 784, 793 (E.D.Tex.2006); 20 C.F.R. § 416.926 (d) (2005).
green
Lewis v. Barnhart (2006)
Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 , 110 S.Ct. 885, 891 , 107 L.Ed.2d 967 (1990) (“For a claimant to show that his impairment matches a listing, it must meet all of the specified medical criteria”); Selders v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 614, 619 (5th Cir.1990); Washington v. Barnhart, 413 F.Supp.2d 784, 793 (E.D.Tex.2006); 20 C.F.R. § 416.926 (d) (2005).
green
Mulinix v. O'Malley (2025)
See Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 514 (9th Cir. 2001) (ALJ did not err in failing to discuss the combined effects of the claimant’s impairments, or compare them to any listing, where the claimant offered no theory or evidence showing that his impairments equaled a listed impairment). “[W]hen a claimant fails, courts must conclude that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings that Listings-level impairments are not present.” Washington v. Barnhart, 413 F. Supp. 2d 784…
citing Selders v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 614, 620 (5th Cir. 1990)
green
Brady v. Social Security Administration (2024)
See Washington v. Barnhart, 413 F. Supp. 2d 784, 791 (E.D.
See Washington v. Barnhart, 413 F. Supp. 2d 784, 791 (E.D.
green
Sou v. Saul (2020)
See Washington v. Barnhart, 413 F.Supp.2d 784, 793 (E.D.Tex. 2006) (describing Step 3 as a “short cut” that can identify disability without moving to Step 4).
describing Step 3 as a “short cut” that can identify disability without moving to Step 4
green
Ballard v. Social Security Administration (2020)
See Washington v. Barnhart, 413 F. Supp. 2d 784, 791 (E.D.