Hodgson v. Barnhart

First Circuit

Hodgson v. Barnhart

129 F. App'x 633

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedMay 6, 2005

DocketNo. 04-2094

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 129 F. App'x 633 (Hodgson v. Barnhart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hodgson v. Barnhart, 129 F. App'x 633 (1st Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After carefully considering the briefs and record on appeal, we affirm, the commissioner’s decision.

The appellant argues that the ALJ faded to assess treating source opinion in accordance with the regulations. The ALJ stated, however, that the appellant’s level of functioning was rated higher by other providers, her daily activities were only mildly restricted, and she did not comply with medical advice. Such factors are relevant under the regulations and adequately support the ALJ’s assessment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 1527(d), 404.1530; Rodriguez v. Sec’y of Health & Human Serv., 647 F.2d 218 (1st Cir.1981). For similar reasons, the appellant establishes no error in the ALJ’s credibility determination. Finally, she fails to show any error in the finding that significant work was available to her. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f); Rosado v. Sec’y of Health & Human Serv., 807 F.2d 292 (1st Cir.1986).

Affirmed. 1st Cir. R. 27(c).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

After carefully considering the briefs and record on appeal, we affirm, the commissioner’s decision.

The appellant argues that the ALJ faded to assess treating source opinion in accordance with the regulations. The ALJ stated, however, that the appellant’s level of functioning was rated higher by other providers, her daily activities were only mildly restricted, and she did not comply with medical advice. Such factors are relevant under the regulations and adequately support the ALJ’s assessment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 1527(d), 404.1530; Rodriguez v. Sec’y of Health & Human Serv., 647 F.2d 218 (1st Cir.1981). For similar reasons, the appellant establishes no error in the ALJ’s credibility determination. Finally, she fails to show any error in the finding that significant work was available to her. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f); Rosado v. Sec’y of Health & Human Serv., 807 F.2d 292 (1st Cir.1986).

Affirmed. 1st Cir. R. 27(c).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 F. App'x 633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hodgson-v-barnhart-ca1-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack