Jelinek v. Astrue

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a claimant’s “brief, part-time employment” did not support the conclusion “that she was able to work a full-time job, week in and week out, given her limitations”
• noting that an ALJ “would be hard-pressed to justify casting aside [a treater’s] opinion in favor of [sic] earlier state-agency opinions”
• explaining that, under the “treating physician rule,” the opinion of a treating physician “that is consistent with the record is generally entitled to ‘controlling weight’”
• stating that “bipolar disorder . . . is by nature episodic and admits to regular fluctuations even under proper treatment”
• explaining that, under the “treating physician rule,” the opinion of a treating physician “that is consistent with the record is generally entitled to ‘controlling weight’”
• explaining that the opinion of a treating physician “that is consistent with the record is generally entitled to ‘controlling weight’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).