Moody v. Berryhill (2017)
green
· 10 citation events
across 6 courts.
Showing the 10 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Hejna v. Bisignano (2025)
Feb. 22, 2016) (remanding because the Court had “no idea whether the ALJ considered [Plaintiff’s] approaching 50th birthday as a borderline age situation, or whether he simply looked at [Plaintiff’s] chronological age and applied the ‘younger individual’ age group in a mechanical fashion and without further thought.”); Moody v. Berryhill, 245 F. Supp. 3d 1028, 1035 (C.D.
same
green
Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security (2023)
See Cox, 2023 WL 5938078 , *12 (quoting Figueroa, 848 F. Supp. 2d at 899-900 ; citing Malgorzata K., 2022 WL 2257122 , *3; Moody v. Berryhill, 245 F. Supp. 3d 1028, 1034-35 (C.D.
green
Cox v. Commissioner of Social Security (2023)
June 23, 2022); Moody v. Berryhill, 245 F. Supp. 3d 1028, 1034-35 (C.D.
green
ALLEN v. KIJAKAZI (2022)
Ind. Aug. 23, 2018) ("An examination of the case law of other district courts within the Seventh Circuit shows that the courts have required ALJs to consider and explain their age category determinations in borderline age situations.") (emphasis original); Moody v. Berryhill, 245 F. Supp. 3d 1028, 1034 (C.D.
Moody v. Berryhill, 245 F. Supp. 3d 1028, 1034 (C.D.
“Without an acknowledgment that there was a borderline age situation, the ALJ’s opinion only shows a mechanical application of the age categories, which § 404.1563(b) forbids.”
green
Michael Raby v. Commissioner of Social Security (2021)
See, e.g., DeBerry, 352 F. App’x at 21 176 (declining to consider claim that ALJ failed properly to apply Social Security 22 Ruling where claimant did not argue the issue “with any specificity” in her opening 23 brief and failed to cite “any evidence or legal authority” in support of her position); 24 Nazarian, 2018 WL 2938581 , at *4 (plaintiff “provides no specific argument 25 regarding how the ALJ in this case specifically erred in such respect, and thus fails 26 to persu…
where plaintiff does 28 1 || not clearly identify the ALJ’s problematic findings or legal support, court “cannot fill 2 || the void by crafting arguments and performing the necessary legal research’
green
Michael Raby v. Commissioner of Social Security (2021)
See, e.g., DeBerry, 352 F. App’x at 21 176 (declining to consider claim that ALJ failed properly to apply Social Security 22 Ruling where claimant did not argue the issue “with any specificity” in her opening 23 brief and failed to cite “any evidence or legal authority” in support of her position); 24 Nazarian, 2018 WL 2938581 , at *4 (plaintiff “provides no specific argument 25 regarding how the ALJ in this case specifically erred in such respect, and thus fails 26 to persu…
where plaintiff does 28 1 || not clearly identify the ALJ’s problematic findings or legal support, court “cannot fill 2 || the void by crafting arguments and performing the necessary legal research’
green
Cynthia L. Reposa v. Commissioner of Social Security (2019)
Essentially, Plaintiff’s argument 17 merely restates her disagreement with the ALJ’s RFC determination. 18 Finally, Plaintiff mentions that her medications cause drowsiness and have 19 “stupefying effects.” (ECF No. 19 at 3-4.) Even liberally construed, these assertions 20 do not fairly present a claim that the ALJ erred in discounting Plaintiff’s testimony. 21 See, e.g., DeBerry, 352 F. App’x at 176 (declining to consider claim that ALJ failed 22 properly to apply Social Se…
green
Jackson v. Kijakazi (2022)
See Moody v. Berryhill, 245 F. Supp. 3d 1028, 1033 (C.D.
green
Courtney v. Berryhill (2018)
See Moody v. Berryhill , 245 F. Supp. 3d 1028 , 1035 (C.D.
holding that the ALJ must articulate her borderline age analysis