Freda R. VAUGHAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna SHALALA, Defendant-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that determination of non-disability supported when no physician of record stated the claimant was disabled
• finding substantial evidence supported RFC determination partly where “no physician who examined [the claimant] pronounced her disabled”
• finding substantial evidence supported RFC determination partly where “no physician who examined [the claimant] pronounced her disabled”
• finding ALJ’s conclusion plaintiff could perform wide range of sedentary work was supported by substantial evidence because, inter alia, plaintiff worked “for several years while suffering from ailments she now asserts are disabling”
• upholding “the ALJ’s finding that [the claimant]’s complaints were not debilitating” as “supported by substantial evidence” where “several of the symptoms allegedly plaguing [the claimant] were not consistent with the objective medical evidence”
• affirming ALJ's finding of no disability as supported by substantial evidence due in part to the fact that “the record reflects that [the claimant] was able to, and did, work for several years while suffering from ailments she now asserts are disabling''

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).