Correale-Englehart v. Astrue

How courts have described this case

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

• applying amended regulation that abrogated Curry where ALJ’s decision was after effective date, even though onset date was before amendment
• remanding where ALJ failed to “adequately explain the reasoning underlying an RFC determination and the basis on which it rests”
• remanding where ALJ’s findings rested in part on misstatement of the claimant’s testimony
• finding ALJ had erred in his assessment of the plaintiff’s credibility where the ALJ “did not mention” facts corroborating the plaintiff’s subjective statements, and determining that the ALJ’s discussion of “the reliability of plaintiff’s testimony . . . is at least incomplete in this respect”
• “[T]he ALJ cherry-picked some of the findings of the [doctor]—notably those that minimized plaintiff's psychological limitations and ignored others. This was of course improper.”
• “[T]he treating- physician rule generally requires deference to the medical opinion of a plaintiff’s treating physician[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).