David Perks v. Michael J. Astrue

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that medical “opinions that are internally inconsistent . . . are entitled to less deference than they would receive in the absence of inconsistencies”
• holding ALJ’s decision to partially discount consultative physician’s opinion was proper because substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision on those limitations
• holding it is not appropriate to reverse the ALJ’s decision simply because some evidence would support a different conclusion
• holding it is not appropriate to reverse the ALJ’s decision simply because some evidence would support a different conclusion
• holding RFC determination is reserved to Commissioner and based on the evidence of record
• noting that 1 In the first four steps of the analysis, the ALJ found that (i) Mr. Lukehart was not engaging in substantial gainful activity (Tr. 12, citing 20 C.F.R. 416.971 et seq.); (ii

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).