Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 81 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Zambrana v. Califano.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Zambrana v. Califano Anchor | green | “a district court reviewing a final . . . decision of the commissioner of social security pursuant to section 205(g) of the social security act, 42 u.s.c 405(g), is performing an appellate function.” | 40 |
| 2 | Shrack v. Astrue | green | “the regulations further provide that even if controlling weight is not given to the opinions of the treating physician, the alj may still assign some weight to those views, and must specifically explain the weight that is actually given to the opinion.” | 17 |
| 3 | Mariani v. Colvin | green | “a treating physician's opinion need not be given controlling weight where it is not well-supported or is not consistent with the opinions of other medical experts" where those other opinions amount to "substantial evidence to undermine the opinion of the treating physician” | 10 |
| 4 | Guillen v. Berryhill | green | “the record is insufficient when 'the medical records discuss the claimant's illnesses and suggest treatment for them, but offer no insight into how the impairments affect or do not affect the claimant's ability to work, or his ability to undertake the activities of daily life.” | 9 |
| 5 | Anthony Pietrunti v. Director, Office Of Workers' Compensation Programs | green | “as a fact-finder, the alj has the discretion to evaluate the credibility of a claimant and to arrive at an independent judgment, in light of medical findings and other evidence.” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.