Peggy S. Dunahoo v. Kenneth S. Apfel, 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.

• holding that the fact that the claimant did not allege depression on his benefits application was significant even though evidence of depression was later developed
• holding that depression was situational and not disabling because it was due to denial of food stamps and workers compensation and because there was no evidence that it resulted in significant functional limitations
• holding that depression was situational and not disabling because it was due to denial of food stamps and workers compensation and because there was no evidence that it resulted in significant functional limitations
• holding fact that claimant did not allege disabling condition in his application is significant, even if evidence of the impairment is later developed
• holding fact that claimant did not allege disabling condition in his application significant, even if evidence of the impairment is later developed
• observing that a failure to allege depression in an application for benefits is significant, even if the evidence of depression was later developed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).