Charlotte M. O'Leary v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services

How courts have described this case

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

• where premises lack record support, vocational expert's response is not substantial evidence
• hypothetical must precisely set out all of the claimant's impairments
• “Because of the interpretive problems inherent in the use of forms such as the physical capacities checklist, our Court has held that while these forms are admissible, they are entitled to little weight and do not constitute substantial evidence on the record as a whole.”
• “Because of the interpretive problems inherent in the use of forms such as the physical capacities checklist, our Court has held that while these forms are admissible, they are entitled to little weight and do not constitute “substantial evidence” on the record as a whole.”
• “Because of the interpretive problems inherent in the use of forms such as the physical capacities checklist, our Court has held that while these forms are admissible, they are entitled to little weight and do not constitute “substantial evidence” on the record as a whole.”
• “Because of the interpretive problems inherent in the use of forms such as the physical capacities checklist, our Court has held that while these forms are admissible, they are entitled to little weight and do not constitute “substantial evidence” on the record as a whole.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).