Winschel v. 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.

• holding that the court “may not decide the facts anew, 30 reweigh the evidence, or substitute [its] juadgment” for that of the ALJ
• holding that good cause exists to discount a treating physician’s opinion when the “evidence supported a contrary finding”
• holding that when treating physician’s opinion is not bolstered by the evidence, ALJ has good cause to give that opinion less weight
• holding that the ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefor
• holding that the ALJ erred in failing to include a hypothetical to the VE that accounted for Winschel’s moderate limitation in maintaining concentration, persistence, and pace
• holding that the VE’s testimony was not substantial evidence “[b]ecause the ALJ asked the vocational expert a hypothetical question that failed to include or otherwise implicitly account for all of [the claimant]’s impairments”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).