Grogan v. Barnhart

How courts have described this case

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

• holding where ALJ omitted discussion of evidence, district court may not provide an explanation for the omission
• explaining that a finding from other agencies is evidence that the AL must consider and explain why it is not persuasive
• rejecting “post-hoc rationalizations to explain the Commissioner’s treatment of evidence when that treatment is not apparent from the Commissioner’s decision itself’
• citing, e.g., Allen v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1140, 1145 (10th Cir. 2004); SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 87 (1943)
• citing, e.g., Allen v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1140, 1145 (10th Cir. 2004); SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 87 (1943)
• citing, e.g., , 357 F.3d 1140, 1145 (10th Cir. 2004); , 318 U.S. 80, 87 (1943)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).