Sharon Bingham Matthews v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security

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 holding in Szubak was, specifically, to remand to consider new evidence, not that the ALJ decision was not based on substantial evidence
• holding that such evidence is not part of the record for a district court to review
• holding that where a claimant brings new evidence, remand is appropriate only if it is material and good cause is shown for failing to previously present it
• noting that “‘[t]he findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive’”
• noting that “‘[t]he findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive’”
• noting that “‘[t]he findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).