Wells v. Astrue

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “the ALJ must consider the combined effect of all of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, whether severe or not severe” in assessing the RFC
• holding that “a conclusion that the claimant’s mental impairments are non-severe at step two does not permit the ALJ simply to disregard those impairments when assessing a claimant’s RFC and making conclusions at steps four and five.”
• recognizing that there are exertional limitations “inherent in sedentary work”
• remanding that case for “a more thorough analysis” of the effect of the claimant’s medically determinable non-severe mental impairments on her RFC
• noting that a finding of “none” in a functional area “obviate[s] the need for further analysis at step four,” since the impairment necessarily “pose[s] no restriction on the claimant’s work activities”
• noting that an ALJ need not use the same language as an expert

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).