Wildman 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 could disregard consulting psychologist’s RFC opinions because they were “largely based” on the claimant’s physical ailments
• holding that an ALJ properly gave no evidentiary weight to a physician’s conclusory opinion which cited no medical evidence and provided little to no elaboration
• holding that an ALJ “properly discounted [the treating physician’s] opinion” as conclusory because it consisted of checklists, cited no medical evidence, and provided little elaboration
• holding that lack of specific discussion of psychiatrist’s finding of marked limitation was not error because ALJ elsewhere discussed the psychiatrist’s other findings
• concluding that ALJ properly discounted treating physician’s opinion as conclusory because it consisted of three checklist forms, cited no medical evidence, and provided little to no elaboration
• concluding that ALJ properly discounted treating physician’s opinion as conclusory because it consisted of three checklist forms, cited no medical evidence, and provided little to no elaboration

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).