Selian 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 “to override the opinion of a treating physician . . . the ALJ must explicitly consider” these factors
• concluding that the ALJ erred by citing a portion of doctor’s medical notes while “ignor[ing] the context of the notation”
• concluding that an ALJ, in determining claimant’s RFC, could not rely on the “remarkably vague” opinion of a consulting examiner that the claimant “should be able to lift... objects of a mild degree of weight on an intermittent basis”
• noting that, as a general rule, “ALJs should not rely heavily on the findings of consultative physicians after a single examination”
• cautioning that “ALJs should not rely heavily on the findings of consultative physicians after a single examination”
• highlighting that the ALJ should have contacted the physician because his medical opinion was “remarkably vague” and was “left to the ALJ’s sheer speculation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).