From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dockery v. Saul

United States District Court Western District of North Carolina Statesville Division
Feb 16, 2021
5:20-cv-00008-MR (W.D.N.C. Feb. 16, 2021)

Summary

remanding in part because "the ALJ did not engage in a meaningful discussion of the [Section 404.1527( c)] factors so as to facilitate judicial review"

Summary of this case from Christian v. Saul

Opinion

5:20-cv-00008-MR

02-16-2021

Jarret Lee Dockery, Plaintiff, v. Andrew M. Saul, Defendant.


JUDGMENT IN CASE DECISION BY COURT. This action having come before the Court and a decision having been rendered; IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Judgment is hereby entered in accordance with the Court's February 16, 2021 Order.

February 16, 2021

/s/_________

Frank G. Johns, Clerk

United States District Court


Summaries of

Dockery v. Saul

United States District Court Western District of North Carolina Statesville Division
Feb 16, 2021
5:20-cv-00008-MR (W.D.N.C. Feb. 16, 2021)

remanding in part because "the ALJ did not engage in a meaningful discussion of the [Section 404.1527( c)] factors so as to facilitate judicial review"

Summary of this case from Christian v. Saul
Case details for

Dockery v. Saul

Case Details

Full title:Jarret Lee Dockery, Plaintiff, v. Andrew M. Saul, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court Western District of North Carolina Statesville Division

Date published: Feb 16, 2021

Citations

5:20-cv-00008-MR (W.D.N.C. Feb. 16, 2021)

Citing Cases

Lewis v. Saul

However, a record showing symptoms and treatment that vary in intensity over time is not inconsistent with a…

Joseph v. Kijakazi

(finding that where the Claimant's mental impairments produced good days and bad days, the ALJ erred in…