Hartman v. Bowen

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining although plaintiff 24 has to establish that disability existed prior to the expiration date, she is limited to evidence that 25 existed pre-expiration
• although 6 disability must be established prior to the date last insured, plaintiff is “not confined ... to 7 evidence in existence prior to that date”
• “[W]hen mental illness is the basis of a disability claim, as 22 in this case, clinical and laboratory data may consist of the diagnoses and observations of 23 professional psychiatrists and psychologists.”
• “In this case, plaintiff must establish that a disability 3 existed prior to December 31, 1966. However, plaintiff is not confined . . . to evidence in existence 4 prior to that date.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).