Calzada v. ASTURE

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the ALJ failed to develop the record and provide an adequate explanation for his conclusion that claimant could perform medium work, where consulting physician’s views were inconsistent with the ALJ’s reasoning
• remanding where the ALJ failed to address or seek additional information regarding a physician’s observations that were potentially relevant to the status of the claimant’s diabetes and hypertension
• finding legal error and remanding where the ALJ failed to “meet his affirmative obligation[]” to “further develop and address a clear gap in the record regarding plaintiff’s mental status”
• remanding in part because ALJ’s decision did not explain why an MRI evidencing a small disc herniation in close relation to a nerve in plaintiff’s lumbar spine was insufficient to support the conclusions of [the treating physicians]
• remanding in part because AL’s decision did not explain why an MRI evidencing a small disc herniation in close relation to a nerve in plaintiff's lumbar spine was insufficient to support the conclusions of [the treating physicians]
• adopting report and recommendation finding legal error at step three where the ALJ “did not even make mention of the list, much less discuss his conclusion regarding the severity of plaintiff’s impairments in relation to the listed disabilities.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).