Michelle Ford v. Andrew Saul

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an ALJ’s reliance on qualified, cogent, and uncontradicted expert testimony generally constitutes substantial evidence in support of the ALJ’s finding
• holding that ALJ reasonably discounted doctor’s opinion about claimant’s ability to work where the claimant testified that she could work occasional eight-hour shifts for FedEx
• holding that an “ALJ may permissibly reject check-off reports that do not contain any explanation of the bases of their conclusions” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• holding that “[t]he court will uphold the ALJ’s conclusion when the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation”
• holding that “[a] conflict between a treating physician’s opinion and a claimant’s activity level” supports rejection of the physician’s opinion
• holding that medical source opinion that described abilities as “limited” and “fair” were not useful in determining a claimant’s RFC

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).