McIntire v. Astrue

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that Appeals Council was required to give more detailed explanation in its decision where it was considering additional medical evidence including “new evidence of the treating physician that is material and inconsistent with prior evidence”
• remanding where new medical opinion submitted to the Appeals Council contradicted medical opinion relied upon by ALJ and presented “a reasonable probability” of a different result
• remanding where new medical opinion submitted to the Appeals Council contradicted medical opinion relied upon by ALJ and presented “a reasonable probability” of a different result
• remanding where a new opinion and radiological report extension” and her lumbar spine lateral flexion and rotation were full. (Compare R. 16, 19, 26, 29 with 351
• “[T]the additional evidence received by the Appeals Council required further explanation and an application of the treating physician rule on appeal.”
• “Evidence that is cumulative to that already contained in the record prior to the ALJ decision is, by definition, not ‘new’ and need not be considered.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).