Nadine BENSKIN, Appellee, v. Otis R. BOWEN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an ALJ's decision is conclusive upon a reviewing court if it is supported by \substantial evidence\
• stating that the real issue is not whether claimant has pain but rather severity of pain
• noting that reviewing courts are “governed by the general principle that questions of fact, including the credibility of a claimant’s subjective testimony, are primarily for the [Commissioner] to decide, not the courts”
• disabling pain not indicated when claimant merely took hot showers and used Advil and aspirin to relieve pain
• finding harmless error where “the deficiency probably had no practical effect on the outcome of the case”
• finding harmless error where “the deficiency probably had no practical effect on the outcome of the case.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).