Lane-Rauth v. Barnhart

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that an ALJ erred by discounting evidence supporting the plaintiffs claims without explaining his basis for doing so
• finding that there was no “logical bridge” between the facts and the ALJ’s conclusion because the ALJ simply listed all of the evidence without further explanation
• noting that although “ ‘the ALJ need not articulate his reasons for rejecting every piece of evidence, he must at least minimally discuss a claimant’s evidence that contradicts the Commissioner’s position’ ”
• noting that although the ALJ’s ruling is given considerable deference, the court could not determine whether the ruling is based on substantial evidence where the ALJ failed to evaluate the required factors
• stating that the ALJ is required to “build an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to [his] conclusion so that” a reviewing court “may assess the validity of the agency’s ultimate findings and afford a claimant meaningful judicial review”
• finding the narrative discussion insufficient where the ALJ listed evidence without explaining its support for his conclusion or reasons for discounting contrary evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).