Chapo v. Astrue

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the ALJ “properly gave no weight to [a] conclusory form, which lacked any functional findings”
• holding that “ALJ properly gave no weight to [a] conclusory form, which lacked any functional findings”
• holding that an RFC finding need not directly correspond to a specific medical 6 opinion
• holding that “ALJ properly gave no weight to [a] conclusory form, which lacked any functional findings”
• holding that “there is no requirement in the regulations for a direct correspondence between an RFC finding and a specific medical opinion on the functional capacity in question”
• holding that while a limited treating relationship may be a valid reason for not giving controlling 28 weight to the opinion of a treating physician, “it is not by itself a basis for rejecting them”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).