Lawrence Jones v. Department of Health and Human Services

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the ALJ’s statement that she considered the combination of impairments is adequate to show such consideration
• explaining that the reasons an ALJ articulates for “refus[ing] to credit a claimant’s subjective pain testimony” must be “based on substantial evidence” (footnote omitted)
• finding that a statement by an ALJ listing the claimant’s impairments and concluding they were not alone or in combination covered by Appendix 1 was evidence that the ALJ considered the combined impact of the impairments
• finding that a claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments listed in, or medically equal to one listed in Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulation No. 4 indicates proper consideration of impairments in combination
• holding the ALJ had given adequate consideration to the combination issue based upon a conclusory statement that the claimant did not have “an impairment or combination of impairments listed in, or medically equal to one listen in Appendix 1”
• finding that the ALJ considered the combined effect of the claimant’s impairments because the ALJ found that the claimant did “not have ‘an impairment or combination of impairments listed in, or medically equal to one listed in Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulation No. 4’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).