In re Ginglen

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that even a fiancée’s third party function report should not be automatically discounted for potential bias
• holding the ALJ erred in discounting testimony based on a familial relationship without explaining what part of the testimony is credible and what is not
• stating that an examining state agency physician is “unlikely . . . to exaggerate an applicant’s disability”
• finding that a doctor examining a patient on behalf of the agency is “unlikely . . . to exaggerate an applicant’s disability”
• noting that an examining agency physician is “unlikely . . . to exaggerate an applicant’s disability”
• noting that an agency doctor is unlikely “to exaggerate an applicant's disability, as the applicant is not his patient and favoritism with applicants would not go down well with the agency”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).