Townsend v. Minnesota

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that where claimant “has been and continues to be represented by counsel,” he is assumed to be make “his strongest case for benefits”
• explaining that the court’s review is limited “to determining whether the Appeals Council’s decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole” (quotation marks omitted)
• explaining that the court presumes a claimant represented by counsel made her strongest case
• “[D]isregarding Schloesser’s subjective testimony where it contradicts with contemporaneous reports he made to his 16 physicians and their independent observations is permissible.”
• finding that minimal complaints and treatment support a non-severity finding
• affirming Appeals Council’s adverse credibility finding where Appeals Council provided adequate reasons, including claimant’s infrequent treatment before his DLI and the unremarkable findings and improvement of his condition in the medical records

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).