Smith v. Charity & Gibson, P.C.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that an ALJ may rely on opinion evidence from a source that did not have access to later-submitted evidence so long as there is “some indication” that the ALJ considered that fact before finding the earlier opinion more persuasive
• affirming ALJ decision where “the ALJ recounted the medical evidence entered after Dr. Carr gave his opinion and explained why it gave greater weight to Dr. Carr’s opinion despite it predating that evidence.”
• rejecting contention that the ALJ erred by relying on VE testimony given in response to hypothetical that did not incorporate all of claimant’s limitations “because the ALJ’s hypothetical question incorporated all of the functional limitations that he found to be credible”
• rejecting contention that the ALJ erred by relying on VE testimony given in response to a hypothetical that did not incorporate all of claimant's limitations “because the ALJ’s hypothetical question incorporated all of the functional limitations that he found to be credible”
• rejecting contention that the ALJ erred by relying on VE testimony given in response to hypothetical that did not incorporate all of claimant’s limitations 13 “because the ALJ’s hypothetical question incorporated all of the functional limitations that he found to be credible”
• “It is well established that an ALJ may pose hypothetical-questions to a vocational expert and is required to incorporate only those limitations accepted as credible by the finder of fact.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).