Healthcare Law

The court affirmed the Commissioner. Normal respiratory and pulmonary examinations supplied substantial evidence for the ALJ’s functional assessment, and Nunn did not identify a concrete additional restriction that the record required.

Bombardini v. Board of Psychology: Challenge to Discipline Was Untimely and Probation Ruling Stands.

A California federal court vacated a Social Security denial because the administrative law judge selectively read the medical record when rejecting the claimant’s pain testimony.

The court affirmed a disability-benefits denial because substantial evidence and valid credibility reasons remained despite limited errors in the ALJ’s analysis.

A disability denial was reversed because the ALJ misread medical testimony and improperly treated travel as proof of six-hour standing and walking capacity.

The Northern District reversed a Social Security denial because the ALJ overlooked extensive evidence that the claimant needed a cane.

The court reversed and remanded. It found that the administrative decision mentioned competing evidence but did not build a reasoned connection between activities such as shopping, reading, watching television, or using transit and the assessed capacity for sustained work.

The court granted the claimant’s summary-judgment motion, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded. It concluded that the administrative evaluation did not comply with the governing standards for weighing the evidence and explaining the resulting limitations.

The court granted the claimant’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and sent the matter back to the agency. The decision found the analysis insufficient under the rules requiring obesity to be considered in combination with other medically determinable impairments.

The court granted the claimant’s motion and denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion. It concluded that the evidence had not been properly evaluated and that the resulting decision could not stand on the reasoning the agency supplied.