Michael A. PFITZNER, Appellant, v. Kenneth S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• remanding where the ALJ failed to specify the function-by-function limitations when describing the claimant’s RFC
• requiring remand where RFC was described in only “general terms” and failed to “specify the details” of plaintiff’s limitations
• noting 8th Circuit's position that conclusory statements that a claimant can perform past work, unsupported by the specific findings reguired by SSR 82-62, do not amount to substantial evidence
• where ALJ never specifically articulated [the claimant's] residual functional capacity, rather he described it only in general terms
• where ALJ merely recounted most of relevant medical evidence and described claimant’s RFC in only general terms, ALJ failed specifically to set forth claimant’s physical and mental limitations and determine how those limitations affected claimant’s RFC

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).