Campbell v. Astrue

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that “the treating physician rules [did] not apply” because the doctor “was not [the claimant’s] treating physician during the relevant period”
• noting that a subsequent treating physician’s retrospective opinion could be “entitled to significant weight”
• noting that an “absent an error of law, a court must uphold the Commissioner's decision if it is supported by substantial evidence, even if the court might have ruled differently.”
• finding no error in determining that a retrospective opinion was not entitled to controlling weight where it was “directly contradict[ed]” by “substantial medical and non- medical evidence” in the record
• “[A] court must uphold the Commissioner’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence, even if the court might have ruled differently.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).