McDade v. Astrue

by
Plaintiff appealed the denial of his application for disability benefits and supplemental security income (SSI). The court concluded that the ALJ did not err in discounting the most severe subjective complaints of pain because the ALJ properly applied Polaski v. Heckler and provided valid reasons for discounting plaintiff and his mother's testimony; the ALJ properly weighed the opinions of plaintiff's treating physicians; the ALJ properly used the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (the "Grids") to determine whether there was substantial gainful employment plaintiff could perform; and the court agreed with the ALJ's conclusion that plaintiff did not satisfy the criteria for Listing 1.04 or any other listing in the Adult Listing of Impairments. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "McDade v. Astrue" on Justia Law