Cluster 7322201
green
· 31 citation events
across 2 courts.
Showing the 8 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Id. at 3 (citing Gross v. Colvin, 213 F. Supp. 3d 229, 233 (D.
holding that where an exertional level falls between two rules that would produce opposite disability findings, the ALJ must examine the degree the exertional capacity was reduced
Id. at 3 (citing Gross v. Colvin, 213 F. Supp. 3d 229, 233 (D.
holding that where an exertional level falls between two rules that would produce opposite disability findings, the ALJ must examine the degree the exertional capacity was reduced
Mass. Sept. 20, 2017) (Hillman, J.) (citing SSR 83–12) (“Where a claimant is not capable of performing the full range of a category of work, a vocational expert should be consulted to clarify the implications of the claimant’s RFC for the occupational base.”); Gross v. Colvin, 213 F. Supp. 3d 229, 234 (D.
Talwani, J.
Mass. Sept. 20, 2017) (Hillman, J.) (citing SSR 83–12) (“Where a claimant is not capable of performing the full range of a category of work, a vocational expert should be consulted to clarify the implications of the claimant’s RFC for the occupational base.”); Gross v. Colvin, 213 F. Supp. 3d 229, 234 (D.
Talwani, J.
green
Baillargeon v. Berryhill (2019)
Id. at 232 (citations to the record omitted).
citations to the record omitted
Mass. Aug. 10, 2011) (where claimant could “perform most of the requirements for light exertional work,” but her capacity to stand/walk was less than the required amount for light work, ALJ properly “consulted a vocational expert to determine what light exertional jobs were available to plaintiff that allow a sit/stand option”); Gross v. Colvin, 213 F. Supp. 3d 229, 234 (D.
where claimant’s RFC fell between light and sedentary, in part due to a two-hour limitation on standing/walking, “SSR 83-12 advise[d] the ALJ [to] use a vocational expert to determine the impact the reduced exertional capacity has on the occupational base’
green
Pate v. Saul (2020)
See Gross v. Colvin, 213 F. Supp. 3d 229, 235-36 (D.