Vitale v. Apfel

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 ALJ reasonably rejected a retrospective opinion because the doctor did not begin treating the plaintiff until after the relevant period and the opinion was not based on any medical findings from the relevant period
• noting that “the existence of a pre-existing disability can be proven by a retrospective opinion” if it “refer[s] clearly to the relevant period of disability” and does “not simply express an opinion as to the claimant’s current status”
• noting that “the existence of a pre-existing disability can be proven by a retrospective opinion” if it “refer[s] clearly to the relevant period of disability” and does “not simply express an opinion as to the claimant’s current status”
• “Where a plaintiff's impairment continues and 13 becomes more severe after the expiration of insured status, such exacerbation of a pre-existing injury cannot form the basis for determination of an earlier disability.”
• “While the existence of a pre-existing disability can be proven by a retrospective opinion, such an opinion must refer clearly to the relevant period of disability and not simply express an opinion as to the claimant’s current status.”
• “While the existence of a pre-existing disability can be proven by a retrospective opinion, such an opinion must refer clearly to the relevant period of disability and not simply express an opinion as to the claimant’s current status”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).