Boyd v. Apfel

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).