Molina v. Astrue
- Decided
- April 2, 2012
- Docket
- 10-16578
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 5,375 timesSuperseded by statute (verified)Possible negative treatment: superseded by statute, superseded on other grounds (207 of 886 verified; none is a verified overruling) · Doddridge v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
What later courts said
- recognizing that a conflict with treatment notes is a germane reason to reject a treating physician’s assistant’s opinion — Jasim Ghanim v. Carolyn W. Colvin (2014)
- concluding that the ALJ properly discredited claimant testimony that was inconsistent with the medical record — Michael Cramer v. Nancy Berryhill (2017)
- holding that an ALJ may reject generic, standardized, check-box forms that do not provide explanations for the physician’s conclusions — Andrew Terrey 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
Opinion by Judge IKUTA; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge GRABER.
OPINION IKUTA, Circuit Judge:
Edilia Molina appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under the Social Security Act. She argues that the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred by giving [*1108] inadequate weight to the opinions of her primary care provider, by improperly determining she was not credible, and by rejecting the testimony of her family members without comment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (2012)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.