Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
2,217 results
1.01s
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 10, 2025
Qualified vocational expert Laura Pizzurro also testified. Id. In March 2024, ALJ Loucas issued a written decision, which found that Ayala was not entitled to benefits. Tr. 2787–2817. … The claimant is clearly not this limited posturally and there is no objective evidence she is this limited in standing or walking.
Cited 0 timesUnknownHarper v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 25, 2021
If an ALJ discounts or rejects a claimant’s subjective complaints, he must clearly state his reasons for doing so. Felisky v. Bowen, 35 F.3d 1027, 1036 (6th Cir. 1994). … Hughes’s opinions, such that the ALJ clearly had the post-opinion evidence in mind in fashioning the RFC. ECF Doc. 17 at 9-10.
Cited 0 timesUnknownByers v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 20, 2025
“[N]either the listings nor the Sixth Circuit require the ALJ to ‘address every listing’ or ‘to discuss listings that the applicant clearly does not meet.’” Smith-Johnson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 579 F. … Instead, an ALJ should discuss a listing “where the record raises ‘a substantial question as to whether [the claimant] could qualify as disabled’ under a listing.” Id. (quoting Abbott v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownChiccola v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 3, 2020
Ohio) (“In light of her qualified opinion, the ALJ’s decision to discount the opinion based on its vagueness is sufficiently clear and supported by the evidence.”). … Nevertheless, the ALJ’s decision “must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the individual’s symptoms, be consistent with and supported by the evidence, and be clearly articulated so the individual and any
Cited 0 timesUnknown421 F. Supp. 740 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 23, 1976
Six pieces of legal mail, clearly marked as such, were opened improperly outside the presence of the inmate/addressee in early March, 1976. … The latter three housing areas, are somewhat special since inmates assigned to 5 and 5-E must have qualified for and been admitted to the Papillon drug rehabilitation program, and assignments to 6-F are made on the basis
Cited 6 timesPublishedBentz v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 2, 2021
Macknin as a “treating source,” the Court has some doubt as to whether she qualified as such for purposes of her 2016 opinion under Social Security regulations. … Thus, it is questionable whether she qualified as a “treating source” at the time she authored her January 2016 opinion.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 20, 2026
“[N]either the listings nor the Sixth Circuit require the ALJ to ‘address every listing’ or ‘to discuss listings that the applicant clearly does not meet.’” Smith-Johnson, 579 F. Appx. at 432 (quoting Sheeks v. … Instead, an ALJ should discuss a listing “where the record raises ‘a substantial question as to whether [the claimant] could qualify as disabled’ under a listing.” Id. (quoting Abbott v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownWeese v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 17, 2024
Weese established care with Douglas Moul, MD, at the Cleveland Clinic Sleep Disorders Center on February 5, 2019. (Tr. 1672-77.) … An “ALJ should discuss the relevant listing, however, where the record raises ‘a substantial question as to whether [the claimant] could qualify as disabled’ under a listing.” Smith-Johnson, 579 F.
Cited 0 timesUnknownMaldonado v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 14, 2025
The claimant bears the burden of establishing that his condition meets or 8 Mr. … Conversely, for those reports and findings that are distinct from the timely evidence discussed by the ALJ—like reports of auditory hallucinations—the evidence does not clearly establish that those reports relate back
Cited 0 timesUnknownPerkins v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 15, 2024
First, the phrase “significantly below average” does not clearly address the specific degree of limitation suggested by an FSIQ of 63. … On remand, the ALJ shall clearly and accurately articulate her findings as to the persuasiveness of the consultative opinions of Dr. Lehmann and Mr.
Cited 0 timesUnknownLegacy Roofing Services LLC v. Fusco
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 8, 2024
Sept. 18, 2007) (barring a defendant from working in the field where he has established expertise and benefit from reduced market competition. … So, Legacy’s failure to establish either factor is fatal to its preliminary injunction request.
Cited 0 timesUnknownArends v. Family Solutions of Ohio, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 28, 2022
136 S.Ct. 1036, 1046 (2016) (in FLSA collective action and Rule 23 class action case, noting that “[i]n many cases, a representative sample is the only practicable means to collect and present relevant data establishing … Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Amended Complaint clearly plead Rule 23 class claims and both parties contemplated that Rule 23 class certification briefing would occur after an extended period of fact discovery.
Cited 0 timesUnknownTomco Metal Fabricating, Inc. v. Turner Construction Company, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 8, 2022
Tomco relied on Turner’s representations, as well as “other representations,” because they had done business with one another for decades and Turner was one of the few companies in the United States qualified to bid on … Leave to amend is also appropriate for Tomco to more clearly articulate the nature of the breach-of-contract claim.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDelgado v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 6, 2025
Ruiz Delgado that she did not qualify for SSI payments because she was not disabled. (Tr. 103.) Ms. … The burden shifts to the Commissioner at Step Five to establish whether the claimant has the RFC to perform work in the national economy. Id. C.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 18, 2026
Generally, these regulations are duplicates and establish the same analytical framework. … These statements do not misrepresent Adkins’ testimony, as it acknowledges that during her testimony Adkins qualified her ability to work part time and to do “some” housework.
Cited 0 timesUnknownHawkins v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 6, 2024
An “ALJ should discuss the relevant listing, however, where the record raises ‘a substantial question as to whether [the claimant] could qualify as disabled’ under a listing.” Smith-Johnson, 579 F. … App’x at 642 (explaining that establishing a “substantial question” requires more than “a mere toehold in the record on an essential element of the listing”).
Cited 0 timesUnknownMartin v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 4, 2019
While the “consistency” factor may be critical in certain cases, the ALJ clearly found all three opinions similarly deficient as explained below. … An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.”); Blanton v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 118 Fed.
Cited 0 timesUnknownFerrell v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 5, 2020
Gales ordered an updated brain MRI, instructed Plaintiff to establish care with a primary care provider, and adjusted his medications. Id. … Sutliff concluded that Plaintiff “is qualified to work on a full time basis . . . under the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) classification of [m]edium physical demands.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownM.F. v. Cleveland Metropolitan School District
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 24, 2024
The burden is on the moving party to establish that a party is necessary for purposes of Rule 19(a). See Eagle Realty Invs., Inc. v. Dumon, 2019 WL 608830 at *2 (S.D. … Although CMSD’s “Third-Party Complaint” is an independent claim that cannot constitute or qualify as a counterclaim against Cuddy, misjoinder is not a sufficient ground to dismiss an action, and severance under Rule 21
Cited 0 timesUnknownZehentbauer Family Land LP v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C.
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 30, 2020
Finally, Plaintiffs allege that they are qualified to represent a class of similarly situated landowners who 12 (4:15CV2449) have leased their oil and gas rights to Defendants because … Plaintiffs’ key “gross proceeds” theory of liability (i.e., that deductions are being taken from the price received by CELLC from CEMLLC or TEPUSA from TGPNA) rests on a false premise, and clearly fails as a matter of Ohio
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna