Summers v. Baumgard

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that it was “irrelevant” that a nonexamining consultant did not see later submitted opinion that the ALJ “rejected . . . based upon substantial contradictory evidence in the record”
• finding there was no reversible error in assigning a more restrictive RFC than would have been justified by the State Agency physicians
• finding that the ALJ did not commit 17 reversible error in assigning plaintiff a more restrictive RFC. “If the RFC includes greater 18 19 limitations than those in a physician’s assessment, such limitations cannot be used to 20 discount the ALJ's determination.”
• explaining “ALJ did not err in assigning [claimant] a more restrictive RFC than would have been justified by the opinions of the State Agency physicians” where record contained adequate support for ALJ’s findings
• “[T]he ALJ did not commit reversible error in assigning [the claimant] a more restrictive RFC.”
• “If the RFC includes greater limitations than those in a physician's assessment, such limitations cannot be used to discount the ALJ's determination”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).