Skip to main content

Are you a legal professional? Visit our professional site

Search for legal issues
For help near (city, ZIP code or county)
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location

Simila v. Astrue, No. 07-3682

Article Placeholder Image
By FindLaw Staff on July 22, 2009 5:25 PM

In a dispute involving plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) the ALJ did not err in declining to place significant weight on plaintiff's doctor's findings regarding the intensity of plaintiff's impairments as the ALJ discerned and discussed the evidence and found that it failed to support the doctor's conclusions; 2) the ALJ's determination of plaintiff's credibility was not patently wrong as the judge properly considered plaintiff's subjective complaints and the evidence undermining the credibility of those complaints; 3) the ALJ's hypothetical questions to the vocational expert did not omit key facts and incorporated all of plaintiff's credible limitation; and 4) the court properly decided against remand where plaintiff's doctor's letter clarifying his prior opinion was not new and material evidence.   

Read Simila v. Astrue, No. 07-3682

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
Argued May 29, 2009
Decided July 22, 2009

Judges
Before CUDAHY, POSNER, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by TINDER, Circuit Judge.

Find a Lawyer

More Options