Marriott International v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that, in reviewing for substantial evidence, the Board incorrectly “emphasize[d] a different set of facts in the record” and was “not at liberty to substitute judgments based on [its] favored competing body of substantial evidence”
• describing the ALJ’s decision to credit one doctor over another as “amply justified”
• “If substantial evidence exists to support the hearing examiner’s findings, the existence of substantial evidence to the contrary does not permit [us] to substitute [our] judgment for that of the examiner.”
• “Except in the case of treating physicians, the [ALJ] is not required to give reasons for rejecting medical evidence of one party that conflicts with medical evidence presented by another party.”
• an ALJ’s credibility findings are given substantial weight

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).