Hamilton v. Astrue

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “a treating physician’s opinion does not deserve controlling weight when it is nothing more than a conclusory statement”
• distinguishing a treating physician’s monthly “progress reports” as medical records from the physician’s “Medical Source Statement” opinion
• ALJ’s credibility determination was proper where he noted, among other things, that plaintiff’s testimony was inconsistent with the evidence of record
• a claimant’s subjective complaints and description of his daily activities may be discounted if inconsistent with the evidence as a whole
• ALJ’s credibility determination was proper where he noted, among other things, that plaintiff’s testimony was inconsistent with the evidence of record
• inconsistencies with treatment notes provide a good reason to not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).