Eustace v. Corning, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the ALJ erred by “failing to explicitly consider several required factors, including [the treating source’s] specialty, and the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment”
• recognizing the ALJ has a heightened duty of explanation when disregarding a treating physician’s opinion
• citing, inter alia, Correale-Englehart v. Astrue, 687 F. Supp. 2d 396, 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(e)(1), 416.912(e)(1) (2010)
• “Failure to properly apply the treating physician’s rule, or consider the required factors, constitutes legal error and is a sufficient basis for remand.”
• “[T]he ALJ must seek clarification and additional information from the physician, as needed, to fill any clear gaps before rejecting the doctor’s opinion.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “A perceived internal inconsistency about a critical finding is a conflict or ambiguity which requires the ALJ to further develop the record by seeking additional evidence or clarification from the treating physician.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).