Thomas FLORES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary, Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that 23 the ALJ “may not reject ‘significant probative evidence’ without explanation” (quoting Vincent 1 v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393, 1395 (9th Cir. 1984))
• holding that the ALJ “may not reject ‘significant probative evidence’ without 17 explanation” (quoting Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393, 1395 (9th Cir. 1984))
• holding that the ALJ “may not reject ‘significant probative evidence’ without 17 explanation” (quoting Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393, 1395 (9th Cir. 1984))
• holding that an ALJ “may not reject 6 ‘significant probative evidence’ without explanation” (quoting Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 7 1393, 1395 (9th Cir. 1984))
• holding that an ALJ 8 “may not reject ‘significant probative evidence’ without explanation” (quoting Vincent v. 9 Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393, 1395 (9th Cir. 1984))
• ruling that a hypothetical question posed to a vocational expert must “include all of the [plaintiff’s] functional limitations, both physical and mental”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).