Michael James Kamann v. Carolyn W. Colvin

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that when the ALJ's decision that a physician was unpersuasive was supported by substantial evidence, semantics arguments did not justify reversal
• holding that when the ALJ's decision that a physician was unpersuasive was supported by substantial evidence, semantics arguments did not justify reversal
• noting that the ALJ properly considered that the claimant was seen “relatively infrequently for his impairments despite his allegations of disabling symptoms”
• noting that the ALJ properly considered that the claimant was seen “relatively infrequently for his impairments despite his allegations of disabling symptoms”
• noting that the ALJ properly considered that the claimant was seen “relatively infrequently for his impairments despite his allegations of disabling symptoms”
• noting that the ALJ properly considered that the claimant was seen “relatively infrequently for his impairments despite his allegations of disabling symptoms”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).