From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Casher v. Halter

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
Mar 29, 2001
Civil Action No. 00-0110-AH-L (S.D. Ala. Mar. 29, 2001)

Summary

finding it was questionable whether a doctor could be considered "treating" where he examined claimant on only two occasions

Summary of this case from Pitt v. Astrue

Opinion

Civil Action No. 00-0110-AH-L

March 29, 2001


JUDGMENT


In accordance with the Order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying claimant benefits be AFFIRMED.

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the recommendation to which objection is made, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and dated the 8th day of March, 2001 is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.


Summaries of

Casher v. Halter

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
Mar 29, 2001
Civil Action No. 00-0110-AH-L (S.D. Ala. Mar. 29, 2001)

finding it was questionable whether a doctor could be considered "treating" where he examined claimant on only two occasions

Summary of this case from Pitt v. Astrue
Case details for

Casher v. Halter

Case Details

Full title:EARNEST H. CASHER, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM A. HALTER, Acting Commissioner of…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division

Date published: Mar 29, 2001

Citations

Civil Action No. 00-0110-AH-L (S.D. Ala. Mar. 29, 2001)

Citing Cases

Wallace v. Astrue

See 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2) (emphasis added). If the relationship between the physician and the patient,…

Smith v. Colvin

Thus, because the record indicates that Dr. Wilson examined Ms. Smith only once, the Court does not consider…