Supreme Court· 6/5/2000

Sims v. Apfel

Citations

530 U.S. 103
120 S. Ct. 2080
147 L. Ed. 2d 80
2000 U.S. LEXIS 3766

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 issue exhaustion requirement is more appropriately invoked when the administrative proceedings were adversarial
holding that an ALJ’s bare conclusory statement that an impairment did not match, or was not equivalent to, a listed impairment was insufficient
holding that issue exhaustion was not required in a claimant’s request for review before the SSA’s Appeals Council
holding that, if the Appeals Council denies request for review, the ALJ's decision becomes the Commissioner’s final decision
holding that the Commissioner’s final decision necessarily incorporates the Appeals Council’s denial of a claimant’s request for review
holding that the issue exhaustion requirement is more appropriately invoked when the administrative proceedings were adversarial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Thomas, Ii-A, Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, Ii-B, Breyer, Rehnquist, Scaua, Kennedy

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

447 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

29 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Sims v. Apfel

5 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.