Daniel L. Smith v. William A. Halter, Commissioner of Social Security

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a reviewing court “may not disturb [a credibility determination] absent compelling reason”
• holding where ALJ’ hypothetical incorporated concrete restrictions identified by examining psychiatrist regarding quotas, complexity, and stress, ALJ did not err in failing to include that claimant suffered from deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace
• restricting hypothetical to jobs with- out quotas, rather than to simple tasks, adequately ad- dresses impairment in concentration
• the ALJ’s findings concerning a claimant’s subjective statements are entitled to deference and this Court “may not disturb” them “without a compelling reason”
• ALJ did not explicitly include limitation of CPP but accounted for it implicitly by restricted complexity and quota limits
• “Our review . . . is limited to determining whether the [ALJ’s] findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).