State v. Harcombe

How courts have described this case

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

• finding no error in the ALJ’s decision to exclude evidence that “pre-dated the time period the ALJ was required to consider”
• identifying “no error in the ALJ’s decision to exclude additional evidence” because the evidence “pre-dated the time period the ALJ was required to consider”
• “no error in the ALJ's decision to exclude additional evidence proffered by plaintiff” where the “evidence pre-dated the time period the ALJ was required to consider under 20 C.F.R. §404.1512(d)”
• \no error in the ALJ's decision to exclude additional evidence proffered by\ the plaintiff where the \evidence pre-dated the time period the ALJ was required to consider under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512 (d)\
• ‘no error in the ALJ’s decision to exclude additional evidence proffered by” plaintiff where the “evidence pre-dated the time period the ALJ was required to consider under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(d)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).