Kenneth CARLSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, 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 an ALJ must “sufficiently articulate [her] assessment of the evidence” to “enable [the court] to trace the path of the ALJ’s reasoning”
• holding that the ALJ did not need to consider redundant testimony
• holding an ALJ did not err in failing to discuss “testimony [which] was essentially redundant” with the claimant’s
• stating that an ALJ must “sufficiently articulate his assessment of the evidence to assure us that the ALJ considered the important evidence . . . and to enable us to trace the path of the ALJ’s reasoning”
• describing that the ALJ must “sufficiently articulate his assessment of the evidence to assure us that the ALJ considered the important evidence . . . and to enable us to trace the path of the ALJ’s reasoning
• stating that an ALJ must “sufficiently articulate his assessment of the evidence to assure us that the ALJ considered the important evidence . . . and to enable us to trace the path of the ALJ’s reasoning”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).