Fifth Circuit· 1/19/2001

Boyd v. Apfel

Citations

239 F.3d 698
2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 692
2001 WL 46304

How courts have described this case

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

noting that a hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert by the ALJ must “incorporate reasonably all disabilities of the claimant recognized by the ALJ”
noting that Bowling did not hold that a party’s failure to point out the problems in a defective hypothetical automatically salvages that hypothetical as a proper basis for a determination of non-disability
noting that Bowling did not hold that a party’s failure to point out the problems in a defective hypothetical automatically salvages that hypothetical as a proper basis for a determination of non-disability
noting that a vocational expert’s testimony cannot be the basis of a not-disabled determination where the hypothetical does not include all disabilities recognized by the ALJ or apparent in the record
remanding a social security case where “[t]he ALJ’s hypothetical question did not incorporate many of the impairments or limitations described in ... post-hearing ... reports”
“Even if the degree of impairment is ‘severe,’ the regulations require an assessment of whether the impairment meets or exceeds the criteria of a [Listing].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Wiener, Stewart, Rosenthal

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

57 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.