Steven Arnold 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.

• noting that a claimant’s “subjective complaints need not be accepted insofar as they clash with other, objective medical evidence in the record”
• finding that opinions of four lay witnesses were not competent to refute professional medical testimony and establish disability
• upholding a hypothetical that restricted the claimant to low-stress, low-production work when stress-induced headaches, frustration, and anger caused the claimant’s difficulties in concentration, persistence, or pace
• upholding hypothetical that restricted the claimant to low-stress, low-production work when the claimant's difficulties with concentration, persistence and pace arose from stress-induced headaches, frustration and anger
• upholding a hypothetical restricting the claimant to work involving low production standards and a low-stress environment, where the claimant’s difficulties with concentration, persistence, or pace arose from stress-induced headaches, frustration, and anger
• upholding a hypothetical restricting the claimant to work involving low production standards and a low-stress environment, where the claimant’s difficulties with concentration, persistence, or pace arose from stress-induced headaches, frustration, and anger

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).