Husbands v. Paducah & Illinois Railroad

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that RFC is not supported by substantive evidence when ALJ made that decision “by failing to follow the treating physician rule”
• remanding where “ALJ O’ Leary did not properly apply—or even acknowledge the existence of— the treating physician rule”
• remanding for calculation of benefits where “the ALJ disregarded a well-developed record with little explanation, giving the [c]ourt no basis to conclude that remanding to obtain additional evidence would support the Commissioner’s decision”
• remanding for calculation of benefits where “the ALJ disregarded a well-developed record with little explanation, giving the [c]ourt no basis to conclude that remanding to obtain additional evidence would support the Commissioner's decision”
• ALJ erred by failing to “identify the specific evidence in the record contradicting [the plaintiff’s testimony”
• law- of-the-case doctrine did not apply where district court identified errors with ALJ’s RFC analysis but did not “reach a conclusion as to [the] proper RFC”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).