Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that weighting is proper where reviewer can “follow the adjudicator’s reasoning” and “determine that correct legal standards have been applied”
• holding that remand was not warranted where court could “follow the adjudicator’s reasoning” and “determine that correct legal standards have been applied”
• holding that the ALJ’s failure to weigh medical opinions was harmless since the medical opinions in the record on the claimant’s ability to work were consistent with the RFC finding
• holding that any error from ALJ’s failure to specify the weight given to an examining physician’s opinion was harmless where the opinion was not inconsistent with the limitations assessed in the RFC
• holding alleged error was harmless because the ALJ’s RFC determination was “generally consistent” with the physician’s findings
• stating that “[i]n the case of a nonacceptable medical source . . . the ALJ’s decision is sufficient if it permits [the court] to follow [his] reasoning” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).