Loza v. Apfel

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “[n]o good cause appears in the ALJ opinion or in the record to justify the ALJ’s failure to give ‘considerable weight’ to the treating doctors’ medical evidence”
• holding the ALJ cannot impact” on ability to perform the full range of sedentary work.
• holding “it is clear that the ALJ must consider all the record evidence and cannot ‘pick and choose’ only the evidence that supports his position.”
• noting that “[s]ubsequent medical evidence is [also] relevant . . . because it may bear upon the severity of the claimant’s condition before the expiration of his or her insured status”
• stating that inquiry as to an ALJ finding is “whether the record, read as a whole, yields such evidence as would allow a reasonable mind to accept the conclusions reached by the ALJ”
• remanding for reconsideration where ALJ erred by only evaluating consequences of claimant’s mental and physical impairments individually and by not considering their combined effects

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).