Martise 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 in formulating a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ is not required to rely entirely on a particular physician’s opinion
• holding that the ALJ “properly considered the combined effects of [the claimant's] impairments” after discussing each impairment and providing a synopsis of the medical records
• holding that the ALJ is required to order further medical examinations only if the existing medical record does not provide sufficient evidence to determine whether the claimant is disabled
• holding that ALJ’s synopsis of Martise’s medical records and discussion of each of her alleged impairments was evidence of the ALJ’s proper consideration of the combined effects of her impairments
• finding that where claimant had non-severe impairments, ALJ’s RFC formulation was not error where ALJ properly accounted for the combined effects of claimant’s impairments
• holding the ALJ is not required to rely entirely on a particular physician’s opinion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).