Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Peck

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that an ALJ is not required to assign controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician where the opinion is based on the claimant's subjective complaints of pain and unremarkable medical tests
• ALJ expressly found that the claimant was not disabled as of the date of the hearing
• “Because SSI benefits . . . can only be granted prospectively, the only issue to be determined . . . was whether plaintiff was disabled as of the date of his application . . . .”
• “Because SSI benefits . . . can only be granted prospectively, the only issue to be determined . . . was whether plaintiff was disabled as of the date of his application . . . .”
• “Although the new evidence submitted to the Appeals Council forms part of the administrative record under review, it does so only to the extent that it relates to the time frame encompassed in the ALJ's decision.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).