Marks v. Biter

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that opinions may be discounted for relying on subjective complaints that are not credible
• finding that, because ALJ not patently wrong to find claimant’s complaints not credible, ALJ properly deemphasized treating physician’s report relying heavily on claimant’s statements
• finding that the ALJ’s conclusion that the claimant’s mental findings were “essentially normal and intact” improperly ignored portions of notes indicating serious mental health issues
• noting that an opinion regarding what a claimant can or cannot do in a given day is not a “medical opinion” to which the ALJ must defer
• noting that “[e]ven . . . a minor discrepancy, coupled with the hearing officer’s observations of the claimant during the hearing, is sufficient to support an ALJ’s finding that a claimant was incredible”
• stating that judicial review of ALJ’s symptom assessment is “extremely deferential”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).