James H. White v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a medical expert’s “opinion, buttressed by the State Consultants’ opinions, was an adequate evidentiary foundation for the [RFC] finding.”
• noting that it is permissible for ALJ to discount medical opinion that is based on subjective complaints
• noting that it is permissible for the ALJ to discount a medical opinion that is based on subjective complaints
• explaining that a physician “who only examined [the plaintiff] once, fits the definition of a nontreating source,” and “[a]s a result, . . . the ALJ was not required to assign controlling weight to [the examiner’s] opinion”
• discounting opinion that strayed from physiatrist’s area of expertise and opined that the claimant had a psychiatric disorder
• discounting medical opinion because it was based on only the plaintiff’s subjective complaints, which were not credible

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).