Smith v. Colvin

18 Citing cases

  1. Pribnow v. Kijakazi

    21-cv-1238-pp (E.D. Wis. Apr. 24, 2023)

    In support, the plaintiff cites a 2014 case from Judge Griesbach and a 1999 case from the Northern District of Indiana. Id. at 30 (citing Smith v. Colvin, 9 F.Supp.3d 875, 889 (E.D. Wis. 2014); Behymer v. Apfel, 45 F.Supp.2d 654, 663-64 (N.D. Ind. 1999)).

  2. Marcus A. T. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    3:21-cv-00273-DWD (S.D. Ill. Sep. 30, 2022)

    If the RFC assessment conflicts with an opinion from a medical source, then the ALJ must explain why the opinion was not adopted. See id.; accord Smith v. Colvin, 9 F.Supp.3d 875, 887 (E.D. Wisc. 2014). Medical opinions are considered pursuant to the following factors: (1) supportability; (2) consistency; (3) the relationship with the claimant; (4) specialization; and (5) other factors supporting or contradicting the medical opinion, including evidence showing familiarity with other evidence in the claim or an understanding of disability policies and evidentiary requirements.

  3. William Z. v. Kijakazi

    21-cv-6785 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 27, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    As such, although ALJs are not mandated to “adopt each and every limitation opined by a physician, even when she finds the opinion persuasive,” Jack A. v. Kijakazi, No. 20 C 3446, 2021 WL 5882145, at *3 (N.D.Ill.Dec. 13, 2021), if an ALJ finds a medical opinion persuasive, she “must explain why limitations included in the opinion are not included in the RFC.” Smith v. Colvin, 9 F.Supp.3d 875, 887 (E.D.Wis. 2014); Johnson v. Saul, No. 19-C-856, 2020 WL 1900139, at *10 (E.D.Wis. Apr. 16, 2020) (same, quoting Smith)

  4. Toth v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    CAUSE NO. 1:17-cv-00516-SLC (N.D. Ind. Jan. 8, 2019)

    Courts have found that an ALJ's finding of a "severe" additional physical or mental impairment at step two, in turn satisfies the third prong of Listing 12.05C. See Smith v. Colvin, 9 F. Supp. 3d 875, 884 (E.D. Wis. 2014) (explaining that an ALJ's finding of a "severe" additional physical or mental impairment at step two satisfies the third prong of Listing 12.05C); Miller v. Colvin, No. 3:13-CV-380 JD, 2014 WL 4105034, at *1 n.3 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 19, 2014) (collecting cases); Washington v. Astrue, No. 2:10-cv-367, 2012 WL 3108872, at *7 (N.D. Ind. July 31, 2012) (same); Frazier v. Astrue, No. CV-09-3063-CI, 2010 WL 3910331, at *5 (E.D. Wash. Oct. 4, 2010) (same); see also SSR 02-1p, 2002 WL 34686281, at *4-5 (Sept. 12, 2002) (explaining that if obesity is found to be a "severe" impairment at step two, then it satisfies the third prong of Listing 12.05C).

  5. Engle v. Colvin

    CAUSE NO. 1:13-CV-00319 (N.D. Ind. Jul. 25, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    The Court will begin with the third prong-a physical or other mental impairment imposing an additional and significant work-related limitation of function-because Engle easily clears this hurdle. Courts have concluded that an ALJ's finding of a "severe" additional physical or mental impairment at step two satisfies the third prong of Listing 12.05C. Smith v. Colvin, No. 13-c-306, 2014 WL 1271188, at *7 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 26, 2014) ("The law in this area has progressed, . . . and courts in this [C]ircuit now typically equate the two standards."); Washington v. Astrue, No. 2:10-cv-367, 2012 WL 3108872, at *7 (N.D. Ind. July 31, 2012); Anderson, 2011 WL 4899990, at *6; Anthony v. Astrue, No. 1:10-cv-136, 2011 WL 2728059, at *6 (S.D. Ind. July 12, 2011); Elster v. Barnhart, No. 01 C 4085, 2003 WL 124432, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 13, 2003). Here, the ALJ found at step two that Engle's borderline intellectual functioning, bradycardia, depression, and generalized anxiety disorder were all severe impairments.

  6. Sarah M. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    3:22-cv-1852-DWD (S.D. Ill. Sep. 29, 2023)

    If the RFC assessment conflicts with a medical source opinion, then the ALJ must explain why the opinion was not adopted. See id.; accord Smith v. Colvin, 9 F.Supp.3d 875, 887 (E.D. Wisc. 2014).

  7. Reginald B. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    3:22-cv-1369-DWD (S.D. Ill. Sep. 26, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    If the RFC assessment conflicts with a medical source opinion, then the ALJ must explain why the opinion was not adopted. See id.; accord Smith v. Colvin, 9 F.Supp.3d 875, 887 (E.D. Wisc. 2014). Medical opinions are considered with the following factors: (1) supportability; (2) consistency; (3) the relationship with the claimant; (4) specialization; and (5) other factors supporting or contradicting the opinion, including evidence showing familiarity with other evidence in the claim or an understanding of disability policies and evidentiary requirements.

  8. Demian W v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    3:22-cv-660-DWD (S.D. Ill. Sep. 20, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    ” See Smith v. Colvin, 9 F.Supp.3d 875, 889 (E.D. Wisc. 2014) (citing Arnold v. Barnhart, 473 F.3d 816, 821-22 (7th Cir. 2007); Cirelli v. Astrue, 751 F.Supp.2d 991, 1008-09 (N.D. Ill. 2010)); accord Pribnow, 2023 WL 3061515, *21. To the extent credibility is an issue, the ALJ must “give[] specific reasons,” supported by the record, for its determination, which cannot be “patently wrong.”

  9. Conley v. Saul

    No. 1:19-0093 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 14, 2021)

    The regulation is instead aimed at ensuring that consultative examinations requested by ALJs yield clear findings and perspicacious explanations that contribute meaningfully to the Commissioner's evaluation of disability. See Smith v. Colvin, 9 F. Supp. 3d 875, 887-88 (E.D. Wis. 2014) (remanding ALJ's denial of disability based on ambiguous explanations contained in a consultative examiner's report and citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1519p for the proposition that "the [Commissioner] and the state agencies that assist it should demand greater clarity and precision from the consultants it pays to assist it in the important task of evaluating disability claims"). Plaintiff's desire to expand this narrow regulation to cover opinions provided by treating physicians is simply misplaced.

  10. Johnson v. Saul

    Case No. 19-C-856 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 16, 2020)   Cited 4 times

    "Especially where, as here, the ALJ gives a medical opinion great weight, the ALJ must explain why limitations included in the opinion are not included in the RFC." Smith v. Colvin, 9 F. Supp. 3d 875, 887 (E.D. Wis. 2014). As indicated above, Dr. Biscardi found moderate limitations in CPP.