Tommasetti v. Astrue
- Decided
- July 17, 2008
- Docket
- 06-55999
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,958 timesSuperseded on other grounds (verified)Possible negative treatment: superseded on other grounds, superseded by statute (3 of 20 verified; none is a verified overruling) · Loaris v. Kijakazi
What later courts said
- holding that inconsistency with medical evidence is a specific and legitimate reason for rejecting a physician’s opinion — Patrick Bailey v. Carolyn Colvin (2016)
- holding that it was not unreasonable for ALJ to infer that claimant may not have been motivated to work due to his financial reserve — Ruth Shuey v. Michael Astrue (2012)
- concluding that the ALJ properly rejected a treating physician’s opinion that was inconsistent with objective medical evidence — Charel Fisher v. Nancy Berryhill (2017)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge:
Anthony Tommasetti (“Tommasetti”) filed an application for Social Security benefits claiming that he was unable to work because of lower back pain and diabetes mellitus. After an initial denial of that application, and following what the district court characterized as an “administrative odyssey,” the Social Security Appeals Council remanded Tommasetti’s claim to a new Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) to conduct a de novo hearing. At that hearing, the ALJ took testimony from a medical expert, a vocational expert (“VE”), and Tommasetti. After largely rejecting the opinion of one of Tommasetti’s treating physicians and finding Tommasetti’s testimony not credible, the ALJ concluded, [*1037] based almost entirely on the VE’s testimony, that Tommasetti could perform his past work. Alternatively, the ALJ found that Tommasetti could perform other work in the national economy and local economy. The Appeals Council declined jurisdiction over Tommasetti’s appeal, and the district court affirmed the ALJ’s decision as supported by substantial evidence.
We hold that the ALJ provided “clear and convincing” reasons for rejecting Tom-masetti’s testimony as not credible.
Cite this
Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (2008)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.