William MORALES, Appellant, v. Kenneth S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that while an ALJ is required to address such medical opinions, there is no requirement that the opinion be adopted
• holding that a reviewing court is “bound to the Commissioner’ findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record”
• holding that an ALJ “may reject” a physician’s opinion “on the basis of contradictory medical evidence and not due to his or her own credibility judgments”
• holding that an ALJ may only reject a treating physician’s opinion on the basis of contradictory medical evidence not due to his or her own speculation or lay opinion
• holding that a “single piece of evidence is not substantial if the Commissioner failed to resolve a conflict created by countervailing evidence or if it is overwhelmed by other evidence— particularly that offered by a treating physician”
• observing that an ALJ may not reject a treating physician’s opinion outright due to “his or her own credibility judgments, speculation or lay opinion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).