Piche v. Clark County Collection Service, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that because substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s RFC determination, the ALJ did not err in relying on the vocational expert’s responses to hypothetical questions based on that RFC.
• finding the RFC for light work to be supported by substantial evidence when the record reflected “normal range of motion, gait, and strength” and occasional “mild or moderate physical pain, which her medication generally relieved,” among other facts
• finding the RFC for light work to be supported by substantial evidence when the record reflected “normal range of motion, gait, and strength” and occasional “mild or moderate physical pain, which her medication generally relieved,” among other facts
• the ALJ “properly” gave “little weight” to consultative physician’s evaluation that was “inconsistent with the record as a whole”
• first quoting 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.05; then quoting Talavera v. Astrue, 697 F.3d 145, 152–53 (2d Cir. 2012)
• “[T]he ALJ acted well within his discretion in concluding that [plaintiff] was less than credible where [the] ALJ found inconsistencies between [plaintiff's] statements and the evidence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).