Van Vickle v. Astrue

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that any error on the part of the ALJ was harmless because there was \no indication that the ALJ would have decided differently\ in the absence of the error
• noting that claimant’s testimony of disabling limitations was contradicted by the evidence showing that the claimant worked for over four years despite the alleged limitations
• holding an error harmless where “[t]here is no indication that the ALJ would have decided differently” had the error not occurred
• finding that since the claimant did not show that the ALJ would have decided differently that the error was harmless
• stating that there was “no indication that the ALJ would have decided differently” and therefore “any error by the ALJ was . . . harmless”
• finding that an ALJ’s mistake of fact is harmless error when “[t]here is no indication that the ALJ would have decided differently” had the mistake not occurred

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).