Rena Sklar Oppenheim v. Robert H. Finch, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (Now Caspar Weinberger,)

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the court must scrutinize the record as a whole to determine whether the conclusions reached are supported by substantial evidence
• stating that the court must scrutinize the record as a whole to determine whether the conclusions reached are supported by substantial evidence
• stating that the court must scrutinize the record as a whole to determine whether the conclusions reached are supported by substantial evidence
• requiring Secretary to consider on remand effect of medical problems considered in combination rather than individually
• remanding decision that claimant could do light and sedentary work as lacking substantial evidence because Social Security Appeals Council ignored certain evidence of impairments affecting claimant’s ability to work
• vacating and remanding because, inter alia, “[t]h[e] expert judgment is neither met nor contradicted by any other expert judgment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).