Christine Bjornson v. Michael Astru

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that it was impossible to discern basis for non-examining doctor’s expressed skepticism about claimant’s complaints of pain
• holding that doctor describing a claimant as “disabled” is not a basis for discarding his opinion
• emphasizing that language implying that “the ability to work is determined first and is then used to determine the claimant’s credibility”, “gets things backwards”
• stating that failure to recognize differences between activities in daily living and a full‐time job “is a recurrent, and deplorable, feature” of ALJs’ opinions”
• explaining that nearly identical language erroneously implies that claimant’s No. 12‐3354 Page 8 ability to work is determined before her credibility
• explaining that “[t]he failure to recognize these differences is a recurrent, and deplorable, feature of opinions by administrative law judges in social security disability cases.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).