Hernandez-Devereaux v. Astrue

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that an ALJ commits reversible error by not following the Appeals Council’s instructions
• finding that “no acute distress” is “not a clear and convincing reason for doubting [claimant’s] subjective statements since these same physicians did not conclude that these observations conflicted with their diagnoses”
• distinguishing the case from Tonapetyan because the plaintiff “was cooperative during all of her examinations and the administrative process with no effort at deception”
• “[T]he fact that [the] plaintiff is able to attend scheduled medical appointments is not a clear and convincing reason for finding her not disabled.”
• “This court 23 suspects that had plaintiff failed to attend her various appointments, the ALJ would have 24 1 criticized her for failing to comply with treatment as evidence of malingering.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).