Parks Ex Rel. D.P. v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the Appeals Council is not required to make specific findings of fact when it denies review, regardless of whether the new evidence is deemed cumulative or not chronologically relevant
• concluding that the Appeals Council is not required to make specific findings of fact when it denies review, regardless of whether the new evidence is deemed cumulative or not chronologically relevant
• noting that agency consultants’ opinions that the child “had a less than ‘marked’ limitation in acquiring and using information” was probative evidence
• concluding the Appeals Council is not required to make specific findings of fact when it denies review, regardless of whether the new evidence is deemed cumulative or not chronologically relevant
• noting that agency consultants’ opinions can be probative of a child’s limitations
• affirming the ALJ’s decision that a child’s limitations were less than marked even though the evidence showed that the child suffers from some limitation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).