community nat bank v. eichenberger

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that clarifying regulations that do not announce a change in law apply retroactively to cases pending on appeal
• indicating that objective medical evidence is not always required to corroborate statements about the intensity, persistence, and functional effects of subjective complaints of pain
• holding that an agency pronouncement that \simply clariffies] an unsettled or confusing area of the law. . . does not change the law\ and hence may be applied without having impermissible retroactive effect
• holding that a regulation “simply clarifying an unsettled or confusing area of the law . . . does not change the law, but restates what the law according to the agency is and has always been.”
• noting that at Step Five, \the burden shifts to the Secretary to show that the claimant can perform some other job\
• warning that if the stated intent of the later enacting body were given dispositive weight, it “could make a substantive change merely by referring to a new interpretation as a ‘clarification’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).