District of Columbia· 2/25/2011
Clark v. Astrue
Citations
- 826 F. Supp. 2d 13
- 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18565
- 2011 WL 765980
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- explaining that an ALJ need not repeat a discussion of findings throughout each step of the sequential analysis
- finding function-by-function assessment sufficient-where there is no medical evidence contradicting the challenged portion of the claimant’s RFC
- refusing to remand for consultative examination when there was “nothing in the record indicating that the ALJ deemed the evidence insufficient to render his decision.”
- finding function-by-function assessment sufficient where there is no medical evidence con- tradicting the challenged portion of the claimant's RFC
- finding the ALJ was not required to order a consultative examination where there was “nothing in the record indicating that the ALJ deemed the evidence insufficient to render his decision”
- “[A] court may only consider the grounds proffered by the agency in its decision, as post hoc rationalizations will not suffice.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Judge Reggie B. Walton
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
18 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Espinosa v. AstrueDistrict of Columbia· 2013-07-02· cited 36×
- Settles v. ColvinDistrict of Columbia· 2015-08-17· cited 36×
- Goodman v. ColvinDistrict of Columbia· 2017-01-11· cited 31×
- Contreras v. Commissioner of Social SecurityDistrict of Columbia· 2017-03-09· cited 26×
- Davis v. BerryhillDistrict of Columbia· 2017-08-07· cited 25×
- Johnson v. ColvinDistrict of Columbia· 2016-07-13· cited 5×
- Simpson v. ColvinDistrict of Columbia· 2015-08-10· cited 3×
- Jackson v. BerryhillDistrict of Columbia· 2017-08-02· cited 2×
- Johnson v. ColvinDistrict of Columbia· 2017-07-03
- Jackson v. ColvinDistrict of Columbia· 2017-08-02
- Higgins v. ColvinDistrict of Columbia· 2019-09-16
- Henderson v. BerryhillDistrict of Columbia· 2019-10-28
- Ruppert v. BerryhillDistrict of Columbia· 2020-01-13
- Johnson v. SaulDistrict of Columbia· 2021-02-05
- McCormick v. BerryhillDistrict of Columbia· 2021-06-25
- Pinkney v. Commissioner of Social SecurityDistrict of Columbia· 2023-09-14
- Rogers v. KijakaziDistrict of Columbia· 2023-10-25
- Newsome v. KijakaziDistrict of Columbia· 2025-03-12
Cites
13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Richardson v. PeralesSupreme Court· 1971-05-03· cited 22,864×
- Joyce A. Rutherford v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of the Social Security AdministrationThird Circuit· 2005-03-03· cited 1,796×
- Norbert J. Skarbek v. Jo Anne B. BarnhartSeventh Circuit· 2004-12-02· cited 570×
- Butler, Joan S. v. Barnhart, Jo Anne B.D.C. Circuit· 2004-01-13· cited 238×
- Valere Poulin v. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary, United States Department of Health and Human ServicesD.C. Circuit· 1987-05-01· cited 177×
- Rose E. Brown v. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary, Department of Health and Human ServicesD.C. Circuit· 1986-06-20· cited 143×
- Lorraine Smith v. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary, Department of Health & Human ServicesD.C. Circuit· 1987-08-25· cited 111×
- Lane-Rauth v. BarnhartDistrict of Columbia· 2006-06-20· cited 94×
- Banks v. ASTUREDistrict of Columbia· 2008-02-27· cited 45×
- Hartline v. AstrueDistrict of Columbia· 2009-03-31· cited 27×
- Ross v. AstrueDistrict of Columbia· 2009-07-24· cited 21×
- Smith v. AstrueDistrict of Columbia· 2008-02-21· cited 13×
- Evans Financial Corp. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation ProgramsD.C. Circuit· 1998-11-06· cited 9×
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.