Brownawell v. Commissioner 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 that three (3) non-treating opinions were not sufficient to reject a treating source medical opinion because they were “perfunctory” and omitted significant objective findings promulgated after the non-treating opinions were issued
• noting that medical opinions may be afforded “more or less weight depending upon the extent to which supporting explanations are provided”
• noting that Brownawell had taken two district court appeals and her claim was pending for eight years
• finding that substantial evidence did not support the ALJ’s decision because ALJ’s rejection of treating physician opinion was based on erroneous factual assertion and mischaracterization of the evidence
• stating that an award of benefits is only warranted “when substantial evidence on the record as a whole indicates that the claimant is disabled and entitled to benefits”
• explaining that the Court of Appeals has “admonished ALJs who have used such reasoning, noting the distinction between a doctor’s notes for purposes of treatment and that doctor’s ultimate opinion on the claimant’s ability to work.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).