Pete FALCO, SSN 452-44-9336, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee

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 lack of prescription to “formalistic rules in his articulation [of the evidence] compromise[d] no aspect of fairness or accuracy” in his determination
• stating that requiring the ALJ to specifically articulate the evidence accepted and rejected was an unnecessarily rigid approach
• stating that ALJ need not “follow formalistic rules” in rejecting a claimant’s complaints of pain
• noting that the ALJ correctly found that the medical evidence was more persuasive than the Plaintiff’s testimony as “[t]hese are precisely the kinds of determinations that the ALJ is best positioned to make”
• noting that an ALJ’s findings regarding a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain “are precisely the kinds of determinations that the ALJ is best positioned to make,” particularly since the ALJ “enjoys the benefit of perceiving firsthand the claimant at the hearing”
• rejecting as unnecessary a rule requiring the ALJ to specifically articulate evidence that supported the decision and discuss evidence that was rejected

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).