Hooper v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

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

• remanding where the ALJ failed to explain why he adopted the findings of a treating physician but, in his RFC finding, implicitly rejected non-exertional impairments that the physician supported
• remanding where ALJ determined that plaintiff could perform the full range of sedentary work despite adopting medical opinion of “marked limitations for bending and neck motion, reaching, pushing, pulling, lifting, and carrying.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).