Jerold H. Nevland v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that it was improper for the ALJ to rely on the opinions of reviewing physicians alone
• holding that the ALJ erred by relying solely on the opinion of a non-treating, non-examining physician instead of seeking opinions from the treating physicians or, alternatively, ordering a consultative examination
• relying upon non-examining, non-treating physicians to form an opinion on a claimant's RFC does not satisfy the AU's duty to fully and fairly develop the record
• relying upon non-examining, non-treating physicians to form an opinion on a claimant’s RFC does not satisfy the ALJ’s duty to fully and fairly develop the record
• relying upon non-examining, non- treating physicians to form an opinion on a claimant’s RFC does not satisfy the ALJ’s duty to fully and fairly develop the record
• reversing and remanding where ALJ failed to develop the record, leaving un-discovered any “medical evidence about how [the claimant’s] impairments affect his ability to function now” (emphasis in original)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).