Alago v. Roman

How courts have described this case

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

• declining to adopt a rule that “an opinion co-signed by a treating source should be evaluated as a treating-source opinion only if the two providers are part of the same treatment team providing ongoing care to the claimant”
• “a doctor’s cosignature indicates at a minimum that the doctor agrees with the other source’s opinion.”
• Failure to give good reasons for the weight given to a treating source’s opinion is harmless error where the Commissioner made “findings consistent with the [treating-source] opinion.”
• although noting that an FCE is based on “objective observation and defined criteria,” the Court nonetheless analyzed 4 the opinion based on supportability and consistency under the treating physician rule
• “[T]he FCE’s opinion that Hargett’s ability to stand or walk does not meet any standard for work activity is not ‘patently deficient,’ because it is based on objective observation and defined criteria.” (emphasis added)
• “[A] doctor’s cosignature indicates at a minimum that the doctor agrees with the other source’s opinion. . . . [A] treating physician may adopt or ratify the opinion of a non-treating source by providing a signature.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).