Cluster 377876
green
· 75 citation events
across 17 courts.
Showing the 41 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
green
Rhonda L. Hunt v. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, No. 96-5085. (d.c.no. 95-C… (1996)
The cases upon which claimant relies all involve situations "where there was no evidence to support the assumption underlying the hypothetical," Dumas v. Schweiker, 712 F.2d 1545, 1554 (2nd Cir.1983)(where court rejects identical argument of error and distinguishes cases, including Gilliam, which are critical of hypotheticals that ask a vocational expert to assume a particular physical capability on the part of the claimant); see Bastian, 712 F.2d at 1281 ("we find no record…
"The only evidence in the record to support the ALJ's finding that [claimant] could engage in substantial gainful activity is the testimony of the vocational expert."
green
Hunt v. Chater (1996)
The cases upon which claimant relies all involve situations "where there was no evidence to support the assumption underlying the hypothetical," Dumas v. Schweiker, 712 F.2d 1545, 1554 (2nd Cir. 1983)(where court rejects identical argument of error and distinguishes cases, including Gilliam, which are critical of 5 hypotheticals that ask a vocational expert to assume a particular physical capability on the part of the claimant); see Bastian, 712 F.2d at 1281 ("we find no rec…
"The only evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s finding that [claimant] could engage in substantial gainful activity is the testimony of the vocational expert."
This contention is contrary to the evidence and the ALJ's findings 12 See also Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693-94 (8th Cir. 1980) ("We conclude that the vocational expert's testimony was fatally deficient because the hypothetical question failed precisely to set out all the claimant's impairments."); Stubbs v. Mathews, 544 F.2d 1251, 1257 (5th Cir. 1977) 13 The district court also gave unwarranted consideration to these early entries by Dr. Brod, stating that "plainti…
"We conclude that the vocational expert's testimony was fatally deficient because the hypothetical question failed precisely to set out all the claimant's impairments."
The purpose of questioning a vocational expert “is to assess whether jobs exist for a person with the claimant’s precise disabilities,” not to make up unrelated questions to “test[] the contours of an RFC that is permissible as compared to one that would force an ALJ to declare a given claimant disabled.” Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 694 (8th Cir. 1980); Sabrije K. v. Bisignano, No. 25-cv-3623, 2026 WL 540182 , at *2 (N.D.
green
Barton v. Astrue (2008)
Taylor v. Chater, 118 F.3d 1274, 1279 (8th Cir.1997); Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693 (8th Cir.1980) (paper reviews, without an actual examination, are entitled to little weight).
green
Rush v. Barnhart (2006)
E.g., Taylor v. Chater, 118 F.3d 1274, 1279 (8th Cir.1997) (paper reviews without an actual examination are entitled to little weight); Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693 (8th Cir.1980) (same); Landess v. Weinberger, 490 F.2d 1187 , 1189—1190 (8th Cir.1974) (same); see generally 3 Soc.
green
Campbell v. Barnhart (2005)
Vocational Experts are utilized by the ALJ to "assess whether jobs exist for a person with the claimant’s precise abilities.” Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 694 (8th Cir.1980).
green
LaCroix v. Barnhart (2005)
Moreover, medical questionnaires, standing alone, “are entitled to little weight in the evaluation of disability.” Anderson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 634 F.Supp. 967, 972 (D.Mass.l984)(Tauro, J.) (citing, Camp v. Schweiker, 643 F.2d 1325, 1333-34 (8th Cir.1981), and Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693 (8th Cir.1980)).
green
Davis v. Callahan (1997)
Nunn v. Heckler, 732 F.2d 645, 649 (8th Cir.1984); Jackson v. Schweiker, 696 F.2d 630 , 631 n. 1 (8th Cir.1983); Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693 (8th Cir.1980).
green
Smith v. SSA (1996)
Gilliam, 620 F.2d at 693-94 (hypothetical stating claimant capable of light or exertional work defective because failed to include claimant's inability to put on shirt without assistance, tie shoes, operate light switch, or walk 150 feet); Bastian, 712 F.2d at (hypothetical assuming claimant capable of sedentary work failed to include claimant's pain); Simonson, 699 F.2d at 340 (same).
hypothetical stating claimant capable of light or exertional work defective because failed to include claimant's inability to put on shirt without assistance, tie shoes, operate light switch, or walk 150 feet
green
Carol Holland v. Margaret Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services of the United States (1985)
Nunn v. Heckler, 732 F.2d 645, 649 (8th Cir.1984); Jackson v. Schweiker, 696 F.2d 630 , 631 n. 1 (8th Cir.1983); Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693 (8th Cir.1980).
green
Donald F. WHEAT, Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary, Health & Human Services, Appellee (1985)
Moreover, we have stated before that “[ajlthough such forms are admissible, they are entitled to little weight in the evaluation of disability.” Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693 (8th Cir.1980).
green
Bill B. BOGARD, Appellant, v. Margaret HECKLER, Secretary of Health & Human Services, Appellee (1985)
Nunn v. Heckler, 732 F.2d 645, 649 (8th Cir.1984); Jackson v. Schweiker, 696 F.2d 630 , 631 n. 1 (8th Cir.1983); Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693 (8th Cir.1980).
green
Anderson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (1984)
See, e.g., Camp v. Schweiker, 643 F.2d 1325, 1333-34 (8th Cir.1981); Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693 (8th Cir.1980).
green
Junior F. Pandil v. Railroad Retirement Board (1984)
Simonson v. Schweiker, 699 F.2d 426, 430 (8th Cir.1983); McGhee v. Harris, 683 F.2d 256, 259 (8th Cir.1982); Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 694 (8th Cir.1980).
He further found Baugus possessed the residual functional capacity for the full-range of “sedentary” labor under section 404.1567(a) of the Social Security Administrations Regulations. 2 The question we must decide is whether the AU’s decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g) (1983); McGhee v. Harris, 683 F.2d 256, 258 (8th Cir.1982); Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693 (8th Cir.1980).
Camp v. Schweiker, 643 F.2d 1325, 1333-1334 (8th Cir.1981); McCoy v. Schweiker, supra, 683 F.2d at 1147 n. 8; Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693 (8th Cir.1980); Landess v. Weinberger, 490 F.2d 1187, 1189 (8th Cir.1974).
See Aubeuf v. Schweiker, 649 F.2d at 114 (“The hypothetical question ... incorporated the ALJ’s conclusion with respect to pain which we have found to be based on an erroneous standard, and did not adequately account for Mr. Aubeuf’s actual limitations.”); Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693 (8th Cir.1980) (“The only evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s finding that Gilliam could engage in substantial gainful activity is the testimony of the vocational expert.”); M…
McGhee v. Harris, 683 F.2d 256, 259 (8th Cir.1982); Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 694 (8th Cir.1980); Stephens v. Secretary of H.E.W., 603 F.2d 36, 41 (8th Cir.1979).
green
Mitchell v. Schweiker (1982)
Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693 (8th Cir.1980).
green
Aggen v. Schweiker (1982)
Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693 (8th Cir.1980).
green
Cornella v. Schweiker (1982)
Martin v. Harris, 666 F.2d 1153, 1155 (8th Cir. 1981); Stone v. Harris, 657 F.2d 210, 211 (8th Cir. 1981); Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693 (8th Cir. 1980).
green
Savannah McGhee v. Patricia R. Harris (1982)
Gilliam v. Califano, supra, at 693. *259 The claimant contends that the District Court erred in affirming the ALJ’s findings that the Secretary had met this burden.
See, e.g., Martin v. Harris, 666 F.2d 1153 , 1155 n.1 (8th Cir. 1981); Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693-694 (8th Cir. 1980); Stephens v. Secretary of HEW, 603 F.2d 36, 41 (8th Cir. 1979).
green
Loyce McCoy v. Richard S. Schweiker, Clifford M. Stack v. Richard S. Schweiker, James D. Desedare v. Richard … (1982)
It is for those reasons that this Court has held that as a general rule little weight is afforded to RFC checklists, Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693 (8th Cir. 1980), to reports of non-examining physicians, and reports of consulting physicians who examine the claimant only on one occasion, Brand v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 623 F.2d 523 , 527 n.6 (8th Cir. 1980).
Stone v. Harris, 657 F.2d 210, 211 (8th Cir. 1981); Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693 (8th Cir. 1980); Beasley v. Califano, 608 F.2d 1162, 1166 (8th Cir. 1979); Stephens v. Secretary of HEW, 603 F.2d 36, 41 (8th Cir. 1979).
See, e. g., Voyles v. Harris, 636 F.2d 228, 229 (8th Cir. 1980); Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693 (8th Cir. 1980); Davis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 348, 349 (8th Cir. 1979); Beasley v. Califano, 608 F.2d 1162, 1166 (8th Cir. 1979); Stephens v. Sec’y, HEW, 603 F.2d 36, 41 (8th Cir. 1979); Russell v. Sec’y, HEW, 540 F.2d 353, 357 (8th Cir. 1976); Brinker v. Weinberger, 522 F.2d 13, 17 (8th Cir. 1975); Timmerman v. Weinberger, 510 F.2d 439, 443 (8th Cir. 1975).
green
Carl M. Lanes v. Patricia Roberts Harris, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (1981)
E. g., Camp v. Schweiker, 643 F.2d 1325, 1332 (8th Cir. 1981); Warner v. Califano, 623 F.2d 531, 532 (8th Cir. 1980) ; Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693 (8th Cir. 1980).
E. g., Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693 (8th Cir. 1980).
green
Donald L. Camp v. Richard Schweiker (Successor to Patricia Harris), Secretary of Department of Health and Hum… (1981)
“We must uphold the Secretary’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence on *1332 the record as a whole. 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g).” Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693 (8th Cir. 1980).
Ind. Sept. 18, 2023); accord Kimberly N., 2021 WL 1688173 , at *5 (remanding in part because ALJ failed to come to any conclusion regarding the limitations he asked the VE to consider, finding “the logical bridge is entirely missing here with respect to the reasons the ALJ ultimately omitted these limitations from the RFC.”). 3 “[T]he whole purpose of vocational expert testimony [] is to assess whether jobs exist for a person with the claimant’s precise disabilities.” Gillia…
green
Sandra G. TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appel… (1997)
See Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693 (8th Cir.1980).
green
Sandra Taylor v. Shirley Chater (1997)
See Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693 (8th Cir. 1980).
green
Sanzone v. Social Security Administration (2025)
See e.g., Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691 , 694 n. 1 (8th Cir. 1980).
green
Veal v. Social Security Administration (2009)
See e.g., Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691 , 694 n. 1 (8th Cir. 1980). 18 .
See e.g., Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691 , 694 n. 1 (8th Cir.1980). 12 .
green
Mathews v. Barnhart (2002)
Aubeuf v. Schweiker, 649 F.2d 107, 114 (2d Cir.1981); see also Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693-694 (8th Cir.1980).
green
Bradley v. Bowen (1986)
See e.g., Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693-94 (8th Cir.1980); Stephens v. Secretary of HEW, 603 F.2d 36, 41 (8th Cir.1979); Behnen v. Califano, 588 F.2d 252, 255 (8th Cir.1978); Daniels v. Mathews, 567 F.2d 845, 848 (8th Cir.1977).
green
Bradley v. Bowen (1986)
See e.g., Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693-94 (8th Cir.1980); Stephens v. Secretary of HEW, 603 F.2d 36, 41 (8th Cir.1979); Behnen v. Califano, 588 F.2d 252, 255 (8th Cir.1978); Daniels v. Mathews, 567 F.2d 845, 848 (8th Cir.1977)
green
Billy WHITMORE, Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee (1986)
See e.g., Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693-94 (8th Cir.1980).
green
Brissette v. Schweiker (1983)
See, e.g., Warner v. Schweiker, 551 F.Supp. 789, 792 (E.D.Mo.1982) citing Gilliam v. Califano, 472 F.Supp. 598 (E.D.Mo. 1979), rev'd on other grounds, 620 F.2d 691 (8th Cir.1980); Timmerman v. Weinberger, 375 F.Supp. 641 (E.D.Mo.1974), aff'd, 510 F.2d 439 (8th Cir.1975).