Eugenio CRUZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee

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 court’s review for legal error ensures “that the claimant has had a full hearing under the . . . regulations and in accordance with the beneficent purposes of the . . . Act.”
• cautioning that ALJs should not rely heavily on the findings of consultative physicians after a single examination
• holding that traditional notions of due process and fairness would suggest that, without an interpreter, a claimant unable to communicate in English would hardly receive a “full hearing . . . in accordance with the beneficent purposes of the [Social Security] Act”
• describing the ruling in Bluvband v. Heckler, 730 F.2d 886, 894 (2d Cir. 1984), as providing that an “ALJ should not baldly accept consulting physicians’ evaluations which are disputed and formulated after they had examined claimant only once.”
• “[Limiting the weight of consulting sources] is justified because ‘consultative exams are often brief, are generally performed without benefit or review of claimant’s medical history and, at best, only give a glimpse of the claimant on a single day.’” (citations omitted)
• “The scant record herein, which consists of a thirteen-page transcript, reveals a host of lost opportunities to explore the facts.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).