Karen Garrison v. Carolyn W. Colvin
- Decided
- July 14, 2014
- Docket
- 12-15103
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 6,193 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that 14 a district court abused its discretion in declining to apply the “credit-as-true” rule to an appropriate 15 case — Norman v. Kijakazi (2022)
- holding that the court may not affirm where the ALJ “picked out a few isolated 9 instances of improvement” to support the denial of benefits — Evans v. Social Security (2023)
- holding that ALJ erred in using claimant’s activities—talking on the phone, preparing meals, caring for her daughter—to undermine symptom testimony — Concannon v. Berryhill (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 REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:
Karen Garrison appeals from a denial of Social Security benefits, arguing that the [*999] Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in rejecting her symptom testimony and in assigning little weight to the opinions of her treating medical caretakers. In a decision that the Commissioner does not contest, the district court determined that the ALJ erred in assessing the medical opinion evidence and remanded the case for further proceedings. We conclude that the ALJ also erred in discrediting Garrison’s symptom testimony, and that the district court abused its discretion in remanding for further proceedings. Applying our settled “credit-as-true” rule, we reverse the judgment below with instructions to remand this case to the ALJ for the calculation and award of benefits.
BACKGROUND
Statutes cited
Cite this
Karen Garrison v. Carolyn W. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (2014)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.