Krauser v. Astrue’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 5 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (3) the degree to which the physician’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (4) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (5) whether or not the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stanart v. Colvin · Brownrigg v. Berryhill

2. “Adjudicators must remember that a finding that a treating source medical opinion is not well-supported ... or is inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record means only that the opinion is not entitled to ‘controlling weight’, not that the opinion should be rejected. Treating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in [§§ ]404.1527 and 416.927. In many cases, a treating source’s medical opinion will be entitled to the greatest weight and should be adopted, even if it does not meet the test for controlling weight.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 858 F. Supp. 2d 1162 - Richardson v. Astrue

3. “That is precisely how the inquiry should proceed, with the treating physician performing her medical role and the ALJ left to his role as adjudicator. Of course the medical findings as to work-related limitations would, if accepted, impact the ALJ’s determination of RFC — they always do, because that is what they are for — but that does not make the medical findings an impermissible opinion on RFC itself. If doctors could only give opinions on matters that could not affect RFC, medical opinions would be inherently useless in disability determinations.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 858 F. Supp. 2d 1162 - Richardson v. Astrue