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 3 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 Phillips v. Astrue.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Phillips v. Astrue Anchor | green | “we confine our review to the reasons offered by the alj and will not consider post-hoc rationalizations that the commissioner provides to supplement the alj's assessment of the evidence.” | 22 |
| 2 | Terry Pierce v. Carolyn Colvin | green | “we confine our review to the reasons offered by the alj and will not consider post-hoc rationalizations that the commissioner provides to supplement the alj's assessment of the evidence.” | 12 |
| 3 | Cole v. Colvin | green | “change in wording is meant to clarify that administrative law judges are not in the business of impeaching a claimant's character.” | 10 |
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.