Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the fact that an examining physician’s opinion was only based on limited observation was “not a reason to give preference to the opinion of a doctor who has never examined the claimant”
• recognizing that the 16 Commissioner’s decision to not reopen a disability claim is purely discretionary and 17 a discretionary decision is not a “final decision” and therefore is not subject to judicial 18 review
• holding that if a treating physician provided treatment 8 for the claimant’s psychiatric impairment, his opinion constitutes “competent psychiatric 9 evidence” and may not be discredited on the ground that he was not a board-certified 10 psychiatrist
• explaining that conflicts with objective evidence and self-reports can sustain rejection of opinion of treating physician
• nonexamining physician’s opinion cannot by itself be substantial evidence to justify rejection of an examining or treating physician’s opinion
• remanding for payment of benefits where evidence demonstrated that plaintiff met or equaled a listing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).