Bluestem Telephone Co. v. Kansas Corp. Commission

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• affirming determination that plaintiff could perform light work despite evidence that cane had been prescribed
• explaining standard to determine if a cane was a necessary device (i.e., medically necessary)
• explaining standard to determine whether a cane was a necessary device (i.e., medically necessary); Michael T. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:22-CV-2148, 2023 WL 2140984, at (S.D. Ohio Feb. 21, 2023
• “Because the cane was not a necessary device for claimant’s use, it cannot be considered an exertional limitation that reduced her ability to work.”
• where cane used “for ‘insurance’” and “was not a necessary device,” “it cannot be considered an exertional limitation that reduced [the claimant’s] ability to [perform light] work”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).