Perotin v. Colvin (2015)
green
· 12 citation events
across 2 courts.
Showing the 9 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
“Thus, step two is designed ‘to weed out at an early stage of the administrative process those individuals who cannot possibly meet the statutory definition of disability.’” Because the conclusion that a claimant has at least one severe impairment requires the ALJ to proceed to the next step of the sequential evaluation, “the failure to find a particular impairment severe at step two is not reversible error as long as the ALJ finds that at least one other impairment is sever…
quoting Dray v. Astrue, 353 Fed. Appx. 147, 149 (10th Cir. 2009)
green
Trausch v. Bisignano (2025)
“This court, no more than plaintiff, is not in any position to question the vocational expert’s classification of plaintiff’s past relevant work on this basis.”205 202 R. at 45–50. 203 Perotin v. Colvin, 110 F. Supp. 3d 1048, 1055 (D.
“Thus, step two is designed ‘to weed out at an early stage of the administrative process those individuals who cannot possibly meet the statutory definition of disability.’” Because the conclusion that a claimant has at least one severe impairment requires the ALJ to proceed to the next step of the sequential evaluation, “the failure to find a particular impairment severe at step two is not reversible error as long as the ALJ finds that at least one other impairment is sever…
quoting Dray v. Astrue, 353 Fed. Appx. 147, 149 (10th Cir. 2009)
See Gay v. Sullivan, 986 F.2d 1336, 1341 (10" Cir. 1993) (hypothetical propounded to vocational expert need only include such limitations as are supported by evidence); Perotin v. Colvin, 110 F.Supp.3d 1048, 1056 (D.
same
See Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048, 1068 (10th Cir. 2009); Perotin v. Colvin, 110 F.Supp.3d 1048, 1054 (D.
green
Kies v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration (2019)
See Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048, 1068 (10th Cir. 2009); Perotin v. Colvin, 110 F.Supp.3d 1048, 1054 (D.
Reyes v. Bowen, 845 F.2d 242, 245 (10th Cir. 1988); Perotin v. Colvin, 110 F.Supp.3d 1048, 1-54 (D.
green
Moomy v. Colvin (2015)
The ALJ solicited the opinion of a vocational expert on this very issue, and the expert gave a thoughtful, cogent, and reasoned opinion as to why he believed plaintiff's past relevant work was more properly characterized as that of "Economic Analyst” rather than “Financial Planner.” (Tr. 56-57.) " ‘A vocational expert is uniquely qualified to determine how jobs are categorized or classified in the [Dictionary of Occupational Titles].' ” Perotin v. Colvin, 2015 WL 2444424 at …
quoting Spencer v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2014 WL 4351418 at *4 (S.D.Ohio Sept. 2, 2014
See Perotin v. Colvin, 110 F. Supp. 3d 1048, 1057 (D.