William E. MATTHEWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of 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 a vocational expert’s testimony is useful at step four, but not required
• holding that “[t]he mere existence of an impairment is insufficient proof of a disability” and claimant bore burden to prove his back impairment that precluded heavy lifting also precluded him from all work activity
• concluding any error occurred during hypothetical ALJ was \not required\ to ask
• substantial evidence supports finding can do narrow range of medium work where no examining physician concluded claimant is totally disabled
• incomplete hypothetical posed to VE irrelevant to ALJ's determination, therefore, error in excluding portion of hypothetical was harmless
• “Matthews’ own testimony that the 2 receiving clerk/inspector position required a combination of both sitting and standing is highly 3 probative.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).