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.
4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 137 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 Robert M. Haddock v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, Social Security Administration.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Robert M. Haddock v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, Social Security Administration Anchor | green | “the alj must investigate and elicit a reasonable explanation for any conflict between the dot and expert testimony before the alj may rely on the expert's testimony as substantial evidence to support a determination of nondisability.” | 86 |
| 2 | Stokes v. Astrue | green | “ms. stokes' second argument is that the alj's limitation to simple, repetitive and routine work should be construed as a limitation to jobs with a reasoning-level rating of one. we disagree.” | 27 |
| 3 | Stokes v. Astrue | green | “reasonable factfinder could have determined that suitable jobs did not exist in significant numbers in either the region where ms. stokes lives or several regions of the country.” | 13 |
| 4 | Hackett v. Barnhart | green | “simple and routine work tasks.” | 11 |
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.