Cluster 7441195
green
· 216 citation events
across 19 courts.
Showing the 50 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
green
Aaron M. Bibler v. Commissioner of Social Security (2026)
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 563 (6th Cir. 2022) (“[T]he ultimate burden of proving entitlement to benefits lies with the claimant.”); Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc.
“[T]he ultimate burden of proving entitlement to benefits lies with the claimant.”
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 562 (6th Cir. 2022) (“[T]he vocational expert’s testimony at [the] claimant’s] hearing amounts to substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision.”) SSR 00-4p specifically contemplates that a vocational expert’s “experience in job placement or career counseling” may serve as a “reasonable explanation” for an inconsistency between the DOT and the vocational expert’s opinion.
“[T]he vocational expert’s testimony at [the] claimant’s] hearing amounts to substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision.”
green
Kimberly M. Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security (2026)
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 562 (6th Cir. 2022) (“[W]hen a qualified vocational expert testifies that a person with the claimant’s work experience and physical limitations could perform a significant number of jobs available in the national economy, the ALJ has a solid basis for denying disability benefits”) (emphasis added) (citing Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97 , 104–08 (2019)).
“[W]hen a qualified vocational expert testifies that a person with the claimant’s work experience and physical limitations could perform a significant number of jobs available in the national economy, the ALJ has a solid basis for denying disability benefits”
See Moats, 42 F.4th at 563 (“Promoting the claimant’s case, of course, is not the ALJ’s obligation.
“Promoting the claimant’s case, of course, is not the ALJ’s obligation. The ALJ, remember, is a neutral factfinder, not an advocate.”
green
Frazier v. Social Security, Commissioner of (2025)
Rather, a careful reading of Moats makes clear that the Sixth Circuit rejected the claimant’s argument that “the expert did not produce (nor did the ALJ request) the survey data supporting the expert’s testimony about national job numbers,” and held that the VE’s testimony provided substantial evidence “even in the absence of underlying survey data.” Moats, 42 F.4th at 563 (“Biestek, however, explains that testimony from a well- credentialed expert ‘will clear (even handily …
“Biestek, however, explains that testimony from a well- credentialed expert ‘will clear (even handily so) the more-than-a-mere-scintilla threshold’ even in the absence of underlying survey data.”
green
James v. Commissioner of Social Security (2024)
Sec., 42 F. 4th 558, 563 (6th Cir. 2022) (“while the ALJ must ensure that every claimant receives ‘a full and fair hearing,’ the ultimate burden of proving entitlement to benefits lies with the claimant”) (citation omitted), cert. denied sub nom.
“while the ALJ must ensure that every claimant receives ‘a full and fair hearing,’ the ultimate burden of proving entitlement to benefits lies with the claimant”
green
Skibski v. Commissioner of Social Security (2024)
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 563 (6th Cir. 2022) (“the ultimate burden of proving entitlement to benefits lies with the claimant”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512 (a)).
“the ultimate burden of proving entitlement to benefits lies with the claimant”
green
Baier v. Commissioner of Social Security (2024)
F.3d 541, 549 (6th Cir. 2004) (collecting cases); see also Moats, 42 F.4th at 562 (“[W]hen a qualified vocational expert testifies that a person with the claimant’s work experience and physical limitations could perform a significant number of jobs available in the national economy, the ALJ has a solid basis for denying disability benefits.”) V.
“[W]hen a qualified vocational expert testifies that a person with the claimant’s work experience and physical limitations could perform a significant number of jobs available in the national economy, the ALJ has a solid basis for denying disability benefits.”
green
Saunders v. Commissioner of Social Security (2024)
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 562 (6th Cir. 2022) (“[W]e agree that the vocational expert’s testimony at Moat’s hearing amounted to substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision.”).
“[W]e agree that the vocational expert’s testimony at Moat’s hearing amounted to substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision.”
green
Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security (2024)
See Moats, 42 F.4th at 563 (“Promoting the claimant’s case, of course, is not the ALJ’s obligation.
“Promoting the claimant’s case, of course, is not the ALJ’s obligation. The ALJ, remember, is a neutral factfinder, not an advocate.”
green
Gentry v. Commissioner of Social Security (2023)
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 562 (6th Cir. 2022) (“[T]he vocational expert’s testimony at [the claimant’s] hearing amounted to substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision.”).
“[T]he vocational expert’s testimony at [the claimant’s] hearing amounted to substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision.”
green
Schmidt v. Commissioner of Social Security (2023)
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 562 (6th Cir. 2022) (“[W]hen a qualified vocational expert testifies that a person with the claimant's work experience and physical limitations could perform a significant number of jobs available in the national economy, the ALJ has a solid basis for denying disability benefits.”).
“[W]hen a qualified vocational expert testifies that a person with the claimant's work experience and physical limitations could perform a significant number of jobs available in the national economy, the ALJ has a solid basis for denying disability benefits.”
green
Comer v. Commissioner of Social Security (2022)
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 564 (6th Cir. July 27, 2022) (“Time and practice together confirm that Lashley is best viewed as an extreme example of an ALJ failing to adequately develop the record before it.”) “[A]bsent such acute circumstances, we do not ‘heighten’ the ALJ’s fact-finding responsibility, even where a claimant is unsophisticated and appears without counsel.” Id.
“Time and practice together confirm that Lashley is best viewed as an extreme example of an ALJ failing to adequately develop the record before it.”
green
Lawens v. Commissioner of Social Security (2022)
It is the ALJ’s duty to investigate the facts and develop the arguments both for and against granting benefits . . .”); Moats v. Commissioner of Social Security, 42 F.4th 558, 563 (6th Cir. 2022) (“The ALJ, remember, is a neutral factfinder, not an advocate.”).
“The ALJ, remember, is a neutral factfinder, not an advocate.”
green
Sandrock v. Commissioner of Social Security (2022)
It is the ALJ’s duty to investigate the facts and develop the arguments both for and against granting benefits . . .”); Moats v. Commissioner of Social Security, 42 F.4th 558, 563 (6th Cir. 2022) (“The ALJ, remember, is a neutral factfinder, not an advocate.”). hand ganglion cyst excision, left ear hearing loss, and migraines (Exhibits 1F/25; 3F/52, 63; 5F/3-7, 14-15; 6F).
“The ALJ, remember, is a neutral factfinder, not an advocate.”
green
Jamie S. v. Commissioner of Social Security (2026)
Sec., 42 F.4th 558 (6th Cir. 2022) (“[G]oing forward, we would be wise not to upset the Social Security Administration’s carefully crafted procedures with judge-made standards”) (Readler, J. concurring op.).
“[G]oing forward, we would be wise not to upset the Social Security Administration’s carefully crafted procedures with judge-made standards”
Sec., 42 F.4th 558 , 562 (6th Cir. 2022) (“[W]hen a qualified vocational expert testifies that a person with the claimant’s work experience and physical limitations could perform a significant number of jobs available in the national economy, the ALJ has a solid basis for denying disability benefits.”).
“[W]hen a qualified vocational expert testifies that a person with the claimant’s work experience and physical limitations could perform a significant number of jobs available in the national economy, the ALJ has a solid basis for denying disability benefits.”
green
Heath v. Commissioner of Social Security (2025)
Id. (“Promoting the claimant’s case, of course, is not the ALJ’s obligation.
“Promoting the claimant’s case, of course, is not the ALJ’s obligation. The ALJ, remember, is a neutral factfinder, not an advocate.”
green
Blackstock v. Commissioner of Social Security (2025)
Id. (“Promoting the claimant’s case, of course, is not the ALJ’s obligation.
“Promoting the claimant’s case, of course, is not the ALJ’s obligation. The ALJ, remember, is a neutral factfinder, not an advocate.”
green
Frazier v. Commissioner of Social Security (2024)
Id. (“Promoting the claimant’s case, of course, is not the ALJ’s obligation.
“Promoting the claimant’s case, of course, is not the ALJ’s obligation. The ALJ, remember, is a neutral factfinder, not an advocate.”
green
Nguyen v. Commissioner of Social Security (2024)
Id. (“Promoting the claimant’s case, of course, is not the ALJ’s obligation.
“Promoting the claimant’s case, of course, is not the ALJ’s obligation. The ALJ, remember, is a neutral factfinder, not an advocate.”
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 563 (6th Cir. 2022); then citing Gutierrez v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 561 (6th Cir. 2022).
green
Sara E. Gillihan v. Commissioner of Social Security (2026)
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 563 (6th Cir. 2022) (quoting Duncan v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
quoting Duncan v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 801 F.2d 847, 856 (6th Cir. 1986); citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512 (a)
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 561 (6th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up) (quoting Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019)).
cleaned up
green
Carla D. v. Commissioner of Social Security (2026)
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 561 (6th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up) (quoting Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019)).
cleaned up
green
Margaret F. v. Commissioner of Social Security (2026)
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 561 (6th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up) (quoting Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019)).
cleaned up
green
Tammy S. C. v. Commissioner of Social Security (2026)
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 561 (6th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up) (quoting Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019)).
cleaned up
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 563 (6th Cir. 2022).
green
Kelly B. v. Commissioner of Social Security (2026)
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 561 (6th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up) (quoting Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019)).
cleaned up
green
Donna H. v. Commissioner of Social Security (2026)
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 561 (6th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up) (quoting Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019)).
cleaned up
green
Jordan G. v. Commissioner of Social Security (2026)
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 563 (6th Cir. 2022) (citations omitted).
citations omitted
green
Shawn S. v. Commissioner of Social Security (2026)
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 562 (6th Cir. 2022) (citing Biestek v. Berryhill, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1152 , (2019)) (vocational experts provide “‘current knowledge’ about the nature and availability of various jobs based on publicly available data as well as the experts’ own experience in job placement or career counseling,” and testimony about whether “a person with the claimant's work experience and [functional] limitations could perform a significant number of jobs avail…
citing Biestek v. Berryhill, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1152 , (2019)
green
Tonya L. v. Commissioner of Social Security (2026)
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 563 (6th Cir. 2022) (“And the ALJ’s finding here that 32,000 suitable jobs exist across the nation fits comfortably within what this court and others have deemed significant.” (citation modified)) (collecting cases).
“And the ALJ’s finding here that 32,000 suitable jobs exist across the nation fits comfortably within what this court and others have deemed significant.” (citation modified)
green
Carrie R.W. v. Commissioner of Social Security (2026)
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 561 (6th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up) (quoting Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019)).
cleaned up
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 561 (6th Cir. 2022).
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 563 (6th Cir. 2022) (32,000 national jobs); Gutierrez v. Comm’r of Soc.
32,000 national jobs
green
Abigale M. S. v. Commissioner of Social Security (2025)
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 561 (6th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up) (quoting Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019)).
cleaned up
green
Cindy S. v. Commissioner of Social Security (2025)
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 561 (6th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up) (quoting Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019)).
cleaned up
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 563 (6th Cir. 2022) (32,000 jobs significant).
32,000 jobs significant
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 561 (6th Cir. 2022).
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 561 (6th Cir. 2022).
green
Martinez v. O'Malley (2025)
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 561 (6th Cir. 2022).
green
Swartz v. Commissioner of Social Security (2025)
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 563 (6th Cir. 2022).
green
Bibler v. Commissioner of Social Security (2025)
In contrast, heightened care is not required for unrepresented claimants who demonstrate a grasp of the proceedings and adequately present their cases, see Moats, 42 F.4th at 564; Wilson, 280 F. App’x at 459 , or claimants who are represented by counsel at the hearing level, see Stevenson v. Kijakazi, No. 5:20CV2688, 2022 WL 4551590 , at *13 (N.D.
green
Bowman-Reed v. Commissioner of Social Security (2025)
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 561 (6th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up) (quoting Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019)).
cleaned up
green
Gray v. Commissioner of Social Security (2025)
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 561 (6th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up) (quoting Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019)).
cleaned up
green
Warfield v. Commissioner of Social Security (2025)
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 563 (6th Cir. 2022); see Landsaw v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 803 F.2d 211, 214 (6th Cir. 1986); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.912 (a).
green
Givens v. Bisignano (2025)
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 563 (6th Cir. 2022) (32,000 national jobs); Gutierrez v. Comm’r of Soc.
32,000 national jobs
Sec., 42 F.4th 558, 563 (6th Cir. 2022)).) In support, Defendant states the ALJ “patiently explain[ed] the nature of the proceedings to Plaintiff[,] assisted [Plaintiff] in finding an exception to the five-day rule[,] . . . [and] asked open-ended questions that allowed Plaintiff the opportunity[to] present [Claimant’s] case.” (Id. at PageID 309.) Furthermore, Defendant argues the ALJ’s inquiry as to why Claimant had not received earlier treatment was reasonable, not improper.