Albert v. Phillips

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision although the record reflected conflicting medical evidence and the ALJ found a treating physician’s opinion unpersuasive
• holding that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision although the record reflected conflicting medical evidence and the ALJ found a treating physician’s opinion unpersuasive
• holding that the RFC was supported by substantial evidence when the ALJ “relied on the state agency’s 2018 assessment” and “incorporated these findings into [the claimant]’s RFC”
• noting that supportability and consistency are the most important factors that an ALJ considers when reviewing medical evidence provided by treating physicians
• stating that the claimant bears the burden at step four to demonstrate an inability to perform past relevant work
• finding that, although ALJ did not adopt state agency report or accept testimony of a medical provider, this did not preclude finding that his decision was based on substantial evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).