Billy D. Crawford v. Comm. of Social Security

How courts have described this case

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

• holding the ALJ “was not required to include findings in the hypothetical that the ALJ had properly rejected as unsupported”
• stating that the law judge is not required to include restrictions in the hypothetical question that she properly finds are unsupported
• determining that a one-time examiner’s opinion was not entitled to great weight
• finding that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s “decision to discount” a physician’s opinion because it was “inconsistent with his own treatment notes, unsupported by the medical evidence, and appear[ed] to be based primarily on [the claimant’s] subjective complaints”
• “Even if the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner’s findings, [a reviewing court] must affirm if the decision reached is supported by substantial evidence”
• “Even if the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner’s findings, [a reviewing court] must 4 affirm if the decision reached is supported by substantial evidence”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).