Daniel A. v. Saul

5 Citing cases

  1. Seth K. v. Kijakazi

    21-cv-76 (MJD) (LIB) (D. Minn. Jul. 27, 2022)   Cited 4 times

    is in effect an opinion that Plaintiff cannot work, which is a decision reserved for the ALJ. See, e.g., Vossen, 612 F.3d at 1015; Davidson v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 838, 842 (8th Cir. 2009); Daniel v. Saul, No. 17-cv-4322 (ECW), 2019 WL 4306353, at *9 (D. Minn. Sept. 11, 2019). Consequently, that portion of the March 2019 Letter “gets no deference because it invades the province of the Commissioner to make the ultimate disability determination.”

  2. Fatuma A. v. Saul

    Court File No. 19-cv-3160 (WMW/LIB) (D. Minn. Jan. 26, 2021)   Cited 7 times

    The Court notes that although Dr. Kroupin opines that Plaintiff is unable to work, that ultimate decision is reserved for the Commissioner. See, e.g., Vossen v. Astrue, 612 F.3d 1011, 1015 (8th Cir. 2010); Davidson v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 838, 842 (8th Cir. 2009); Daniel v. Saul, No. 17-cv-4322 (ECW), 2019 WL 4306353, at *9 (D. Minn. Sept. 11, 2019). Consequently, this portion of the Dr. Kroupin's opinion "gets no deference because it invades the province of the Commissioner to make the ultimate disability determination."

  3. Belinda B. v. Saul

    Court File No. 20-cv-488 (JRT/LIB) (D. Minn. Jan. 22, 2021)

    That decision is reserved for the ALJ. See, e.g., Vossen, 612 F.3d at 1015; Davidson v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 838, 842 (8th Cir. 2009); Daniel v. Saul, No. 17-cv-4322 (ECW), 2019 WL 4306353, at *9 (D. Minn. Sept. 11, 2019). Consequently, that portion of the June 2018 Opinion, as well as, the July 2018 Letter in its entirety "gets no deference because it invades the province of the Commissioner to make the ultimate disability determination."

  4. O'Keefe v. Saul

    Case No. 2:19-cv-00043 SRC (E.D. Mo. Oct. 27, 2020)   Cited 2 times

    Other courts have given temporary post-surgery restrictions little weight. Daniel A. v. Saul, No. 17-CV-4322 (ECW), 2019 WL 4306353, at *10 (D. Minn. Sept. 11, 2019); see also Espinoza v. Berryhill, No. 18-CV-00315-MEH, 2018 WL 3829956, at *8 (D. Colo. Aug. 13, 2018) ("I agree with the ALJ that limited and temporary restrictions generally receive less weight."). The ALJ recognized this opinion issued shortly after the surgery had little bearing on O'Keefe's capacity since it did not account for treatments and events that occurred following the surgery.

  5. Wasen A. v. Saul

    Court File No. 18-cv-03242 (SRN/LIB) (D. Minn. Jan. 31, 2020)   Cited 4 times

    That decision is reserved for the ALJ. See, e.g., Vossen, 612 F.3d at 1015; Davidson v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 838, 842 (8th Cir. 2009); Daniel v. Saul, No. 17-cv-4322 (ECW), 2019 WL 4306353, at *9 (D. Minn. Sept. 11, 2019). Consequently, this portion of the 2016 Opinion "gets no deference because it invades the province of the Commissioner to make the ultimate disability determination."