Dan Gieseke v. Carolyn Colvin

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that treating opinions “were not supported by objective medical evidence in the administrative record,” and were based “almost entirely” on “subjective complaints”
• explaining that whether a vocational expert’s explanations were based upon insufficient personal experience is a “fact issue[] for the ALJ to resolve” (quoting Welsh v. Colvin, 765 F.3d 926, 930 (8th Cir. 2014))
• ALJ properly relies on vocational expert’s testimony when hypothetical question captures concrete consequences of claimant’s deficiencies

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).