Case Citator › Tommasetti v. Astrue

Tommasetti v. Astrue

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Superseded by statute
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
533 F.3d 1035
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
34 of 34
Citing cases (total)
34
Treatment dates
2022
Superseded by statute
A reviewed court treats this case as superseded by later legislation. The 2017 Social Security regulations superseded Tommasetti v. Astrue's treating physician standard for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017. The Ninth Circuit confirmed that change in Woods v. Kijakazi; Dilbeck v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration identifies Tommasetti as a statement of the former rule.
More on how this was screened

The confirmed treatment is listed below. Later courts continue to use Tommasetti's separate rules on symptom testimony and harmless error. All 34 flagged citations have been reviewed.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

34 later cases cite Tommasetti v. Astrue; 34 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Tommasetti v. Astrue?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Superseded by later regulation

  • The Ninth Circuit held that the 2017 Social Security regulations displaced the medical opinion hierarchy and specific-and-legitimate-reasons standard that Tommasetti applied, for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017.

    Woods v. Kijakazi · Ninth Circuit · filed

    As a threshold matter, we must decide whether recent changes to the Social Security Administration’s regulations displace our longstanding case law requiring an ALJ to provide “specific and legitimate” reasons for rejecting an examining doctor’s opinion. We conclude that they do. For claims subject to the new regulations, the former hierarchy of medical opinions—in which we assign presumptive weight based on the extent of the doctor’s relationship with the claimant—no longer applies.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Tommasetti v. Astrue and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace