Meyer v. Astrue

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Appeals Council may grant review based on additional evidence if evidence is new, material, and relates to relevant time period
• concluding that doctor who was not providing care at time he wrote report for claimant but who had been treating physician some years before writing report was a treating source
• recognizing that in some cases the record would clearly show that the additional evidence submitted to the Appeals Council did not cause the ALJ’s decision to be unsupported by substantial evidence
• recognizing that in some cases the record would clearly show that the additional evidence submitted to the Appeals Council did not cause the ALJ’s decision to be unsupported by substantial evidence
• recognizing that in some cases the record would clearly show that the additional evidence did not cause the ALJ’s decision to be unsupported by substantial evidence and remand would not be required
• noting that “[t]he Appeals Council’s denial of a request for review differs sharply from an ALJ’s decision” (emphasis omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).