Robert M. Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that reversal is required where the agency fails to follow its own procedural regulations where the regulation is intended to protect claimants
• holding that a Social Security Ruling, as “an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation[,] is entitled to substantial deference and will be upheld unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation”
• holding that an error in evaluating a treating physician’s opinion under the previous treating-physician rule may be “irrelevant” where the ALJ nevertheless made findings consistent with that opinion
• stating that failure to explain weight given to treating physician's opinion may be harmless if Commissioner ultimately makes findings consistent with that opinion
• stating that failure to explain weight given to treating physician’s opinion may be harmless if Commissioner ultimately makes findings consistent with that opinion
• holding that a Social Security Ruling, as “an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation[,] is entitled to substantial deference and will be upheld unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).