Jimmy Radford 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.

• vacating award of benefits in light of “ambivalence” of record and “conflicting evidence” as to disability
• noting the Commissioner’s decision “should include a discussion of which evidence [he] found credible and why”
• paraphrasing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). The claimant has the burden of production and proof in the first four steps. Pearson v. Colvin, 810 F.3d 204, 207 (4th Cir. 2015
• explaining that because we review an AL
• “A necessary predicate to engaging in substantial evidence review is a record of the basis for the ALJ’s ruling.”
• it is “not our province –nor the province of the district court – to engage in these [fact-finding] exercises in the first instance.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).