Jian Xin Duan v. Mukasey

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 ALJ impermissibly played doctor when one of the plaintiff’s physicians prescribed her a cane and the ALJ found that the plaintiff’s “examinations and test results showed that [she] did not need to use a cane” (quotation marks omitted)
• “[R]ejecting or discounting the opinion of the agency’s own examining physician . . . can be expected to cause a reviewing court to take notice and await a good explanation for this unusual step.”
• “[R]ejecting or discounting the opinion of the agency’s own examining physician . . . can be expected to cause a reviewing court to take notice and await a good explanation for this unusual step.”
• “Although an ALJ is not required to accept the views of an agency examining physician . . . the ALJ still must have a good explanation for rejecting or discounting the examining physician’s opinion.”
• “[O]ne of [the plaintiff’s] physicians, after more than a year of treating her, had prescribed a cane, and the ALJ impermissibly ‘played doctor’ by substituting her own opinion that a cane really wasn’t necessary.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).