Providence Teachers Union v. the City coun.C. Providence, 99-5917 (2001)

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the plaintiff did not have a Listing 1.02 impairment because the record did not indicate a bilateral limitation in the upper extremities or “an extreme limitation of the ability to walk”
• finding “use of morphine does not itself mandate the conclusion that [p]laintiff’s treatments were non-conservative”
• “In the present case, the undersigned finds that sentence-six remand is unwarranted because Plaintiff’s additional evidence is redundant and immaterial.”
• “‘[T]he use of a commonly prescribed pain medication, even a narcotic, does not remove [claimant’s] treatment from the realm of conservative treatment.’” (quoting Purnell v. Astrue, 662 F.Supp.2d 402, 410 (E.D. Pa. 2009))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).