Daniel Minnick 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.

• concluding that ALJ erred by failing to build a logical bridge from the evidence to her conclusion because the court “cannot discern from the ALJ’s scant analysis whether she considered and dismissed, or completely failed to consider, this pertinent evidence” (emphasis added)
• reversing an ALJ’s perfunctory analysis because “[b]eyond these two sentences, she provided no analysis whatsoever supporting her conclusion.”
• remanding because the ALJ’s two-sentence discussion contained “no analysis whatsoever” and was “the very type of perfunctory analysis we have repeatedly found inadequate”
• finding remand warranted where ALJ found a severe impairment and provided a perfunctory two-sentence analysis as to why the plaintiff's impairment did not meet or equal an applicable listing
• “Though an ALJ’s credibility determination may only be overturned if it is ‘patently wrong,’ Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668, 678 (7th Cir. 2008
• “This is the very type of perfunctory analysis we have repeatedly found inadequate to dismiss an impairment as not meeting or equaling a Listing.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).