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.
10 canonical passages across 9 cases, quoted by 271 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 Danny KEETON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Danny KEETON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee Anchor | green | “substantial evidence consisting of relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion exists.” | 65 |
| 2 | Danny KEETON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee | green | “failure to apply the correct law or to provide the reviewing court with sufficient reasoning for determining the proper legal analysis has been conducted mandates reversal.” | 61 |
| 3 | Renee S. Phillips v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart | green | “(1) treating physician's opinion was not bolstered by the evidence; (2) evidence supported a contrary finding; or (3) treating physician's opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor's own medical records.” | 53 |
| 4 | Marvia A. Cowart, Ssn Rxz-Lh-Flse v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant | green | “it is impossible for a reviewing court to determine whether the ultimate decision on the merits of the claim is rational and supported by substantial evidence.” | 21 |
| 5 | Ingram v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration | green | “action, findings, or conclusion is contrary to the weight of the evidence,” | 16 |
| 6 | Cornelius Washington v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner | green | “even though the psychologist examined the claimant approximately seven months after the alj's decision.” | 16 |
| 7 | Joyce Hargress v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner | green | “nothing in these new medical records indicates the doctors considered the claimant's past medical records or that the information in them relates to the period at issue, which materially distinguishes this case from washington.” | 15 |
| 8 | Fannie M. Owens v. Margaret Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services | green | “state with at least some measure of clarity the grounds for his decision,” | 13 |
| 9 | Raymond Lamar Burgin vs Commissioner of Social Security | green | “because a reviewing court must evaluate the claimant's evidence anew, the ac is not required to provide a thorough explanation when denying review” | 7 |
| 10 | Charles Monroe Timmons v. Commissioner of Social Security | green | “must show, in light of the new evidence submitted to the ac, the alj's decision to deny benefits is not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.” | 4 |
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.