Robert Karlix v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart

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 failure to elaborate on his conclusion that the record did not demonstrate a plaintiff meet or equaled any listed impairment was not erroneous where the record supported that conclusion
• stating that “[t]he fact that the ALJ did not elaborate on [a] conclusion does not require reversal, because the record supports [the] overall conclusion”
• upholding denial of benefits where plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his impairment met listing for continuous 12-month period
• rejecting a claimant’s argument that the ALJ failed to consider whether he was entitled to a closed period of disability based on an impairment that lasted for about ten months
• finding the ALJ considered evidence of a listed impairment and concluding that “[t]he fact that the ALJ did not elaborate on this conclusion [did] not require reversal, because the record support[ed] her overall conclusion”
• finding a lack of credibility when plaintiff’s testimony conflicted with medical documentation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).