Winfield v. O'Brien

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 erred because he “never connected 2 the medical record to Claimant’s testimony” nor made “a specific finding linking a 3 lack of medical records to Claimant’s testimony about the intensity of her . . . pain”
• holding ALJ erred in finding treating opinion “conclusory” 10 and supported by “little explanation,” where ALJ “overlook[ed] nearly a dozen 11 [treatment] reports related to head, neck, and back pain”
• explaining that we may not “take a general 9 finding—an unspecified conflict between [c]laimant’s testimony . . . and her 10 reports to doctors—and comb the administrative record to find specific 11 conflicts”
• reviewing court is “‘constrained to review the reasons the ALJ 8 asserts.’”
• “To show an Eighth Amendment violation, it is not enough that an official should have known of a risk[.]”
• the Court may remand on an open record when the 8 record as a whole creates a serious doubt about the issue of disability

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).