Flaherty 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 it was appropriate to discount the opinion of a source that was based “on a single, subjective report” given by the claimant
• holding that the ALJ’s notation that none of the claimant’s treating sources had “diagnosed her with migraine syndrome and she had not been prescribed medication for migraine” “were appropriate factors for assessing credibility”
• noting that the ALJ retains a duty to develop the record even when a claimant is represented by counsel
• providing that a “non-examining physician’s opinion is an acceptable medical source, which the ALJ was entitled to consider”
• stating that we generally take the Social Security Administration at its word when it states that it has considered a particular matter
• holding ALJ’s statement that impairments did not medically equal a listing paired with fact discussion throughout decision was sufficient to support determination

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).