Leo England v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that I.Q. scores that were only somewhat below average support the ALJ’s finding that the claimant lacked marked limitations in acquiring and using information
• setting out the standard of review and summarizing the “sequential three-step evaluation” for a child-disability claim
• “If substantial evidence supports the decision, we will not reverse, even if substantial evidence could have been marshaled in support of a different outcome.”
• “If substantial evidence supports the decision, we will not reverse, even if substantial evidence could have been marshaled in support of a different outcome.”
• “If substantial evidence supports the decision, we will not reverse, even if substantial evidence could have been marshaled in support of a different outcome.”
• “If substantial evidence supports the decision, we will not reverse, even if substantial evidence could have been marshaled in support of a different outcome.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).