Chambers v. Barnhart

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that electromyography test conducted six months later did not qualify as it “contain[ed] the first suggestion of a possible condition of unspecified duration and as yet unsubstantiated clinical presence”
• holding that electromyography test conducted six months later did not qualify as it “contain[ed] the first suggestion of a possible condition of unspecified duration and as yet unsubstantiated clinical presence”
• recognizing that “the Appeals Council . . . has the responsibility to determine in the first instance whether, following submission of additional, qualifying evidence, the ALJ’s decision ‘is contrary to the weight of the evidence currently of record’”
• finding that the mere presence of a condition with no vocationally relevant impact is a patently inadequate basis for a disability claim
• explaining that it is for the Appeals Council to “determine in the first instance whether, following submission of additional, qualifying evidence, the ALJ’s decision is contrary to the weight of the evidence currently of record”
• explaining that it is for the Appeals Council to “determine in the first instance whether, following submission of additional, qualifying evidence, the ALJ’s decision is contrary to the weight of the evidence currently of record”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).