Burgess v. Astrue

How courts have described this case

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

• deciding that the consultative physician’s failure to read an MRI in the claimant’s medical record rendered the doctor’s opinion incapable of being considered substantial evidence
• holding that the opinion of a consultative examiner who did not review a crucial MRI report could not constitute substantial evidence
• holding that an ALJ may not impose his notion “that the severity of a physical impairment directly correlates with the intrusiveness of the medical treatment ordered”
• holding that the Social Security Administration “recognizes a ‘treating physician’ rule of deference to the views of the physician who has engaged in the primary treatment of the claimant” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• holding that the Social Security Administration “recognizes a ‘treating physician’ rule of deference to the views of the physician who has engaged in the primary treatment of the claimant” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• holding that the Social Security Administration “recognizes a ‘treating physician’ rule of deference to the views of the physician who has engaged in the primary treatment of the claimant” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).