McVeigh v. City of Reno

How courts have described this case

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

• “Because the DOT does not address the subject of sit/stand options, it is not apparent that the testimony conflicts with the DOT.”
• because DOT does not address the subject of sit-stand options, there was no apparent conflict between VE’s testimony and the DOT
• “Because the DOT does not address the subject of sit/stand options, it is not apparent that the testimony conflicts with the DOT.” (emphasis omitted).
• “RFC determination must provide an ‘accurate and logical bridge’ between the evidence and the conclusion that the claimant is not disabled.”
• “[E]ven if the ALJ failed to comply with S.S.R. 00–4p, that failure was harmless because the ALJ was entitled to rely on other, unchallenged VE testimony.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).