Lingenfelter v. Astrue
- Decided
- October 4, 2007
- Docket
- 17-56610
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,541 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- recognizing that the ALJ is to consider the 20 consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole — Ortega v. Commissioner of Social Security (2020)
- recognizing that the ALJ is to consider the 21 consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole — Smith v. Saul (2021)
- recognizing that 20 the ALJ is to consider the consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a 21 whole — Lara 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
Opinion by Judge PAEZ; Dissent by Judge BEEZER.
PAEZ, Circuit Judge:
Allen Lingenfelter appeals the district court’s judgment affirming an Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision denying his applications for social security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (“SSA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-34, 1381-83f. Lingenfelter argues that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s decision because the ALJ improperly rejected his testimony as not credible. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse the judgment of the district court with instructions to remand to the ALJ for the calculation and award of appropriate benefits.[1]
Statutes cited
- 42 U.S.C. § 401-34
- 28 U.S.C. § 1291
- 42 U.S.C. § 423
Cite this
Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (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.