Topic: the alj must cite some other evidence for denying a claim f… · Go Syfert
← All topics

Topic #8305

6 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 44 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 James D. WEAVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.

#Case FlagCanonical passage Citers
1 James D. WEAVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee Anchor
ca6 · 1983
green “the alj must cite some other evidence for denying a claim for pain in addition to personal observation” 11
2 Daniel L. Smith v. William A. Halter, Commissioner of Social Security
ca6 · 2001
green “decision must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the individual's symptoms, be consistent with and supported by the evidence, and be clearly articulated so the individual and any subsequent reviewer can assess how the adjudicator evaluated the individual's symptoms.” 10
3 Siterlet v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
ca6 · 1987
green “tolerance of pain is a highly individual matter and a determination of disability based on pain by necessity depends largely on the credibility of the claimant,” 8
4 Maxmilliano VILLARREAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee
ca6 · 1987
green “tolerance of pain is a highly individual matter and a determination of disability based on pain by necessity depends largely on the credibility of the claimant," and an alj's credibility finding "should not lightly be discarded.” 7
5 Masch v. Barnhart
wied · 2005
green “the alj need not analyze all seven factors identified in the regulation but should provide enough assessment to assure a reviewing court that he or she considered all relevant evidence” 5
6 Vance v. Commissioner of Social Security
ca6 · 2008
green “a diagnosis of fibromyalgia does not automatically entitle a claimant to disability benefits” 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.

← Caselaw search · Hot / Trending / Newly red · Brief Check