Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Benson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding substantial evidence supports an actual finding that the claimant was not disabled despite appellant’s argument that the ALJ “accorded insufficient deference to [her] views.”
• noting that if the evidence could reasonably support two conclusions, the court “may 9 not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner” and must affirm the decision.
• noting that where the evidence can 19 support two conclusions, the court “may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner” 20 21 and must affirm the decision
• noting that if the evidence could reasonably support two conclusions, the court 4 5 “may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner” and must affirm the decision
• noting that affirmance is appropriate where the evidence supports two conclusions
• noting 24 that where the evidence could reasonably support two conclusions, the court “may not substitute 25 its judgment for that of the Commissioner” and must affirm the decision.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).