Kenneth Scrogham 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.

• holding that the ALJ erred because she “never acknowledged in her opinion the waxing and waning of [Plaintiff]'s symptoms with time”
• holding that evidence of a claimant’s willingness to “take powerful pain medication—and that physicians were willing to prescribe this course of treatment—reflects that [his] symptoms caused him real problems”
• holding that the ALJ’s “apparent selection of only facts from the record that supported her conclusion, while disregarding facts that undermined it, is an error in analysis that requires reversal”
• holding that the ALJ’s “apparent selection of only facts from the record that supported her conclusion, while disregarding facts that undermined it, is an error in analysis that requires reversal”
• finding that the ALJ improperly only selected evidence in the record “that supported her conclusion that Mr. Scrogham was not disabled” and ignored contradictory evidence.
• finding that the ALJ improperly only selected evidence in the record “that supported her conclusion that Mr. Scrogham was not disabled” and ignored contradictory evidence.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).