Stadler v. Barnhart

How courts have described this case

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

• remanding for further proceedings where Appeals Council summarily rejected treating physician’s opinion that conflicted with the ALJ’s RFC finding
• requiring an ALJ “make specific findings about the nature of [a claimant's] stress, the circumstances that trigger it, and how those factors affect his ability to work”
• requiring an ALJ “make specific findings about the nature of [a claimant’s] stress, the circumstances that trigger it, and how those factors affect his ability to work”
• remanded because the ALJ failed to adequately evaluate Plaintiff's ability to handle stress in making his RFC determination
• “To state that an impairment is not severe because it does not meet the twelve-month requirement ... is inconsistent with the ... regulations.”
• “To state that an impairment is not severe because it does not meet the twelve-month requirement, then, is inconsistent with the Commissioner's own interpretation of the regulations.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).