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.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 11 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 Campbell v. Astrue.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Campbell v. Astrue Anchor | green | “to take the plaintiff's reports of pain and other limitations into account, but the alj is not required to accept the plaintiff's subjective complaints without question.” | 4 |
| 2 | Whipple v. Astrue | green | “to the extent that a plaintiff's allegations of a symptom 'are not substantiated by the objective medical evidence, the alj must engage in a credibility inquiry.” | 4 |
| 3 | Whipple v. Astrue | green | “the alj will consider all of the available medical evidence, including a plaintiff's statements, treating physician's reports, and other medical professional reports.” | 3 |
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.