context: Eastern conceded at oral argument, however, that our recent decision in West Virginia CWP Fund v. Bender forecloses that contention. Our precedent also readily dispatches Eastern's complaints about the ALJ's consideration of the preamble to the 2000 Final Rule in evaluating the opinions of Drs. Rosenberg and Renn.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 718 F.3d 319, 323
citation_a.parenthetical: explaining that ALJ "may consider" regulatory preamble "in assessing medical expert opinions"
citation_a.sentence: See Harman Mining Co. v. Dir., OWCP, 678 F.3d 305, 314-16 (4th Cir.2012) (concluding that ALJ did not err in invoking regulatory preamble in assessing medical expert’s credibility); see also Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Cochran, 718 F.3d 319, 323 (4th Cir.2013) (explaining that ALJ "may consider” regulatory preamble "in assessing medical expert opinions”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 678 F.3d 305, 314-16
citation_b.parenthetical: concluding that ALJ did not err in invoking regulatory preamble in assessing medical expert's credibility
citation_b.sentence: See Harman Mining Co. v. Dir., OWCP, 678 F.3d 305, 314-16 (4th Cir.2012) (concluding that ALJ did not err in invoking regulatory preamble in assessing medical expert’s credibility); see also Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Cochran, 718 F.3d 319, 323 (4th Cir.2013) (explaining that ALJ "may consider” regulatory preamble "in assessing medical expert opinions”).