Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that medical-vocational guidelines are inapplicable when determining the disability status of claimants suffering from nonexertional limitations
• holding that where a plaintiff has both exertional and non- exertional limitations, an ALJ must take testimony from a vocational expert or consider other similar evidence, such as a learned treatise, rather than solely rely upon the Medical Vocational Guidelines
• holding factual findings are reviewed “only to determine whether the administrative record contains substantial evidence supporting the findings”
• noting that the Court is entitled to satisfy itself that the ALJ applied the correct legal standards
• addressing administrative notice to apply knowledge of commonly acknowledged facts, plus technical or scientific facts that are within the agency's area of expertise
• requiring “the testimony of a vocational expert or other similar evidence” in order to “establish that there are jobs in the national economy” that someone with both “exertional and nonexertional impairments can perform”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).