Orn v. Astrue
- Decided
- July 16, 2007
- Docket
- 18-56510
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 4,142 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that a treating physician's opinion must be given controlling weight if it is well-supported and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record — Marvin Saunders v. Michael Astrue (2011)
- concluding that the ALJ’s reasons for rejecting a physician’s opinions were not supported by substantial evidence — Robert Jamtaas, Jr. v. Nancy Berryhill (2017)
- recognizing that it is not legitimate to discount an 22 opinion for a reason that is not responsive to the medical opinion — Murphy v. Saul (2020)
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
WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge:
Leo Orn filed an application for Social Security benefits claiming that he was unable to work because of disability. Orn has been diagnosed with several disorders, including asthma, severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, sleep apnea, and morbid obesity. Following a remand from the Appeals Council, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) agreed with Orn that he was unable to perform his past work. But, after rejecting the opinions of Orn’s treating physi- [*628] dans and Orn’s testimony, the ALJ concluded that the government had met its burden to prove that Orn was able to perform other work that exists in the economy. The Appeals Council and district court affirmed.
We hold- that the ALJ did not give “ ‘specific, legitimate reasons ... that are based on substantial evidence in the record’ ” for dismissing the opinions of Orn’s two treating physicians.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (2007)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.