holding that an ALJ must be "especially diligent" with this duty when the claimant is unrepresented

holding the ALJ reasonably rejected a doctor's conclusion that the claimant could not work because that is a determination reserved to the Commissioner

holding that VA disability rating "must be considered and ordinarily must be given great weight"

holding error is not harmless where "the reviewing court can determine from the 'circumstances of the case' that further administrative review is needed to determine whether there was prejudice from the error"

holding that the burden is on the party attacking the agency's determination to show that prejudice resulted from the error

holding that the ALJ did not have a duty to request additional information from two of plaintiff's treating physicians about the kind of work he could perform, because "substantially all of their medical records throughout the time they treated [him] were before the ALJ" and there "was nothing unclear or ambiguous about what they said"

holding that the ordinary harmless error rule applied in civil cases applies in social security disability cases, and that the burden is on the party attacking the agency's determination to show that prejudice resulted from the error

holding that the harmless error rule ordinarily applied in civil cases applies in social security disability cases, and that the burden is on the party attacking the agency's determination to show that prejudice resulted from the error

holding that the same kind of harmless error rule that courts ordinarily apply in civil cases applies in social security disability cases, and that the burden is on the party attacking the agency's determination to show that prejudice resulted from the error

holding that a physician's evaluation of a claimant's ability to work is not entitled to deference because "[t]he law reserves the disability determination to the Commissioner"

holding that the same kind of harmless error rule that courts ordinarily apply in civil cases applies in social security disability cases, and that the burden is on the party attacking the agency's determination to show that prejudice resulted from the error

holding that the ALJ does not have to give deference to a witness's opinion on "the ultimate determination of disability"

holding that the harmless error rule ordinarily applied in civil cases applies in social security disability cases, and that the burden is on the party attacking the agency's decision to show that prejudice resulted from the error

holding that the harmless error rule ordinarily applied in civil cases applies in social security disability cases, and that the burden is on the party attacking the agency's decision to show that prejudice resulted from the error

holding that the harmless error rule ordinarily applied in civil cases applies in social security disability cases, and that the burden is on the party attacking the agency's determination to show that prejudice resulted from the error

holding that the same kind of harmless error rule that courts ordinarily apply in civil cases applies in social security disability cases, and that the burden is on the party attacking the agency's determination to show that prejudice resulted from the error

holding that under the harmless error standard applicable to social security disability appeals, the record must show "a substantial likelihood of prejudice" to the party claiming error in order to warrant reversal and remand

holding that the same kind of harmless error rule that courts ordinarily apply in civil cases applies in social security disability cases, and that the burden is on the party attacking the agency's determination to show that prejudice resulted from the error

holding that the same kind of harmless error rule that courts ordinarily apply in civil cases applies in social security disability cases, and that the burden is on the party attacking the agency's determination to show that prejudice resulted from the error

holding that the same kind of harmless error rule that courts ordinarily apply in civil cases applies in social security disability cases, and that the burden is on the party attacking the agency's determination to show that prejudice resulted from the error

holding that a claimant “need not necessarily show what other evidence might have been obtained had there not been error, but does have to show at least a ‘substantial likelihood of prejudice’ ” resulting from the error

holding that the ALJ had no duty to request more information from two treating physicians where "[i]t appears from the record that substantially all of their medical records throughout the time they treated [the claimant] were before the ALJ"

finding ALJ properly rejected doctor's opinion on whether claimant "could work at any job" as such determination was for Social Security Administration to make, and not for a physician

finding that treating physician's opinion "is not binding on an ALJ with respect to the existence of an impairment or the ultimate determination of disability"

finding that while the treating physician's evaluation of a patient's ability to work, as opposed to a diagnosis of an impairment, may be "useful or suggestive of useful information," a physician "ordinary does not consult a vocational expert or have the expertise of one"