Abbott Bros. II Steak Out, Inc. v. Tsoulis

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that there are no “magic words,” but that the ALJ must account for the totality of a plaintiff’s limitations
• holding that “someone with problems concentrating might not be able to complete a task consistently over the course of a workday, no matter how simple it may be”
• noting that “highlighting facts that support a finding of non- disability while ignoring evidence to the contrary” constitutes “impermissible cherry-picking”
• finding that the “ALJ did not take any of the shortcuts on [the plaintiff’s concentration, persistence, and pace] limitations that we have found problematic in other cases” and that the ALJ “tailored” the RFC to her specific limitations
• reversing ALJ opinion that “highlight[ed]” and “made much of the fact[s]” supporting a finding of non-disability but “discounted” and “ignor[ed] evidence to the contrary”
• rejecting concentration, persistence, and pace argument when ALJ tailored claimant’s residual functional capacity to the noted limitations

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).