Bowman v. Astrue (01/04/2008) "Because he failed to make the necessary findings at phase two, the ALJ was unable and failed to make the necessary "function by function" comparison between Ms. Bowman's limited use of her left hand and the demands of her past work as required at phase three. Here, while acknowledging Nurse Hancik's opinions, the ALJ did not explain the weight he attached to these opinions nor explain why he rejected them. As such, since SSR 06-3p should have been applied retroactively due to the fact that it merely clarified existing law, ... the ALJ's failure to follow its procedures in evaluating Nurse Hancik's opinions also constituted reversible legal error."

Maes v. Astrue (04/14/2008) "Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(e), the ALJ generally must recontact the claimant's medical sources for additional information when the record evidence is inadequate to determine whether the claimant is disabled. Put another way, when the ALJ considers an issue that is apparent from the record, he has a duty of inquiry and factual development with respect to that issue."

Carpenter v. Astrue (08/25/2008) "The ALJ's purported pain analysis is improper boilerplate because he merely recited the factors he was supposed to address and did not link his conclusions to the evidence or explain how Mrs. Carpenter's repeated attempts to find relief from pain, and all the drugs she has been prescribed for pain, resulted in a conclusion that she is unlimited in any regard by pain or the side effects from her pain medication."

Poppa v. Astrue (05/27/2009) "Ms. Poppa contends that the second ALJ's decision violated either res judicata or the law of the case doctrine because those doctrines precluded the second ALJ from relitigating the issue of her RFC after it was established in the first ALJ's decision. We disagree with Ms. Poppa's contention."

Artz v. Barnhart (08/14/2002) Disability Insurance Benefits cannot be collected when an individual "is confined by court order in an institution at public expense in connection with ... a verdict or finding that the individual is not guilty of such an offense by reason of insanity.."

Anderson v. Astrue (04/03/09) The ALJ erred by failing to follow the proper procedures for considering the opinions of Mr. Andersen’s treating physicians.

Marshall v. Astrue Whether the ALJ applied proper legal standards in rejecting entirely the treating physicians’ opinion. “When an ALJ rejects a treating physician’s opinion, he must articulate specific, legitimate reasons for his decision.

Madron v. Astrue The VE failed to explain how Ms. Madron could be expected to perform this job despite her difficulty reading. This deficiency severely undercuts the ALJ's conclusion that Ms. Madron is not disabled.

Cruse v. USDHHS SSA is required to consider the combined impact effect of mental and physical impairments in determining disability.

Haddock v. Apfel The ALJ must investigate and elicit a reasonable explanation for any conflict between the Dictionary and expert testimony before the ALJ may rely on the expert's testimony as substantial evidence to support a determination of non-disability.

Passmore v. Astrue SSA claimants do not have an absolute right to subpoena and cross examine SSA experts.

Moss v. Astrue The ALJ failed to adequately consider whether Moss in fact meets the listing based on the provided examples such as an inability to walk a block at a reasonable pace on rough or uneven surfaces, or the inability to carry out routine activities, like shopping and banking.

Bray v. Astrue The ALJ erred by failing to make findings on the issue of whether Bray possessed transferable skills.

Conkle v. Astrue The ALJ failed to consider all of the medical evidence, she could not and did not properly consider whether Ms. Conkle was disabled at steps three or four of the sequential evaluation process.