Rondale Gerrod Farris v. the State of Texas

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that when “[m]edical testimony or conclusions are conflicting, the ALJ is not only entitled but required to choose between them”
• holding that when “[m]edical testimony or conclusions are conflicting, the ALJ is not only entitled but required to choose between them”
• holding that where ALJ failed to explain implicit rejection of evidence or acknowledge presence of evidence, this was error warranting remand
• holding that an ALJ may not “reject evidence for no reason or for the wrong reason.”
• holding that an ALJ’s decision must explain why probative evidence has been rejected “so that a reviewing court can determine whether the reasons for the rejection were improper.”
• holding that an “ALJ cannot reject evidence for no reason or the wrong reason”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).