Krauser 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 specific work-related functional limitations are not issues reserved to the Commissioner and should be given controlling weight when determined by a treating physician
• recognizing that if new evidence is presented to and rejected by the Appeals Council, it generally “plays no role in judicial review”
• stating that the analysis at step five may include questioning the VE about jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform
• noting that “our review . . . is limited to the issues the claimant properly preserves in the district court”
• finding that the specific facts of claimant’s daily activities painted a very different picture than the generalities relied upon by the ALJ
• noting that while “a deficiency as to the conditions for controlling weight raises the question of how much weight to give the opinion, it does not resolve the latter, distinct inquiry”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).