Schmidt 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 the ALJ did not err in discounting a claimant’s reports of pain where they were not supported by the medical record
• holding that in determining an RFC, “the ALJ is not required to rely entirely on a particular physician’s opinion or choose between the opinions of the claimant’s physicians”
• explaining that an “ALJ is not required to rely entirely on a particular physician’s opinion”
• noting that while an ALJ “must consider the entire record,” she “is not required to rely entirely on a particular physician’s opinion”
• highlighting that an ALJ may discount a treating physician’s opinion when it is contradicted by a consulting physician’s opinion
• finding that ALJ did not err in discounting claimant’s reports of pain when they were not supported by the medical record

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).