Zerban v. Eidmann

How courts have described this case

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

• “The ALJ was not required to include this limitation in his hypothetical question because the record indicates that it did not meet the twelve-month duration requirement.”
• VE’s testimony was not ambiguous with regard to the number of jobs available to an individual who was not fluent in English because the ALJ had included the inability to communicate in English in his hypothetical question

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).