Matthews v. Saul

3 Citing cases

  1. Mark B. v. O'Malley

    22-cv-1080 (GMH) (D.D.C. Mar. 12, 2024)

    Turner v. Astrue, 710 F.Supp.2d 95, 106 (D.D.C. 2010) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2)). Often, “citations to contradictory evidence are sufficient explanation for an ALJ's decision to discount the medical opinion of a treating physician.” Matthews v. Saul, No. 18-cv-1110, 2020 WL 5440573, at *1 (D.D.C. Sept. 10, 2020).

  2. Joetta G. v. Kijakazi

    619 F. Supp. 3d 128 (D.D.C. 2022)   Cited 6 times

    But the ALJ does not have to reference each of these factors when justifying her decision. See Matthews v. Saul, No. 18-cv-1110, 2020 WL 5440573, at *1 (D.D.C. Sep. 10, 2020) (citing Grant v. Astrue, 857 F. Supp. 2d 146, 154-55 (D.D.C. 2012)).

  3. Vest v. Saul

    NO. 5:19-CV-00486-MAS (E.D. Ky. Mar. 23, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Accordingly, given the Zaheer opinion's relative consistency with later evidence and the absence of any material intervening medical events or diagnoses that would invalidate the earlier findings, Dr. Zaheer's opinion is not necessarily stale or irrelevant, and the ALJ's partial reliance on it is not categorical error in the context of this specific record. See, e.g., Cauthen, 827 F. App'x at 446 (explaining that, though "disability evidence completely unrelated to the relevant period is irrelevant to adjudication of the claim[,] . . . pre-application medical records may be relevant to the existence of a disability during the relevant period" in some instances); Matthews v. Saul, No. CV 18-1110 (RC), 2020 WL 5440573, at *12 (D.D.C. Sept. 10, 2020) (observing that older medical records are not per se stale because of later information, provided the ALJ's decision in full permits courts to discern a logical connection between the opinion and the weight assigned). Reading ALJ Jackson's opinion as a whole, she found Dr. Zaheer's opinion relatively consistent with other evidence, and not rendered obsolete by later contrary information.