Vossen 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 when ALJ rejected consultative examiner’s sitting and standing limitations as unauthentic, the ALJ should have further developed the record regarding the opinion’s authenticity
• holding that the burden of persuasion to prove disability and demonstrate RFC remains on the claimant
• noting “opinions that a claimant is ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ concern issues reserved for the Commissioner”
• finding substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that the claimant did not meet Listing 1.04A because, among other things, an MRI “showed no superimposed disc herniation, central or lateral canal stenosis, or cord or nerve root impingement.”
• the ALJ is not required to seek additional clarifying statements from a treating physician unless a crucial issue is undeveloped
• the ALJ is not required to seek additional clarifying statements from a treating physician unless a crucial issue is undeveloped

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).