McNamara v. Astrue

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that if substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision, the court “may not reverse,” even if the court “may have reached a different outcome”
• holding the claimant had the burden to prove work- related limitations not included in the RFC finding
• providing that under the substantial-evidence standard the court “may not reverse, even if inconsistent conclusions may be drawn from the evidence and [the court] may have reached a different outcome”
• explaining that if substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision, the court “may not reverse, even if inconsistent conclusions may be drawn from the evidence, and [the court] may have reached a different outcome”
• explaining that if substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision, the court “may not reverse, even if inconsistent conclusions may be drawn from the evidence, and [the court] may have reached a different outcome”
• explaining that if substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision, the court “may not reverse, even if inconsistent conclusions may be drawn from the evidence, and [the court] may have reached a different outcome”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).