Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 canonical passages across 8 cases, quoted by 711 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Bowman v. Astrue.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bowman v. Astrue Anchor | green | “may not reweigh the evidence in the record, nor try the issues de novo, nor substitute the court's judgment for the commissioner's, even if the evidence preponderates against the commissioner's decision.” | 200 |
| 2 | Wilson v. Astrue | green | “if a determination can be made at any of the steps that a claimant is or is not disabled, evaluation under a subsequent step is not necessary.” | 196 |
| 3 | Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Elias-Zacarias | green | “must find that the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it.” | 183 |
| 4 | Johnny J. Howard v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security Administration | green | “the alj, not a physician, is charged with determining a claimant's rfc from the medical record.” | 67 |
| 5 | Hert v. Barnhart | green | “the court may reverse the commissioner's decision only if the evidence 'compels' reversal, not merely because the evidence supports a contrary decision.” | 29 |
| 6 | McDonald v. Astrue | green | “and the alj's rfc assessment is an administrative, rather than a medical determination.” | 21 |
| 7 | Danny Ray v. Nancy Berryhill | green | “because the alj progressed to a later step, any error at step two would not alter that remainder of the five- step process, much less the overall outcome.” | 9 |
| 8 | Durden v. Colvin | green | “it is permissible for such activities to be used to assess a claimant's subjective allegations in light of any true contradiction between his or her alleged severity of symptoms and the claimant's activities.” | 6 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.