La Vern Gude v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services

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 fact that a physician reported that the claimant was “doing well” could mean that they were “doing well for someone with a kidney transplant,” not that they weren’t disabled
• holding that the fact that a physician reported that the claimant was “doing well” could mean that they were “doing well for someone with a kidney transplant,” not that they weren’t disabled
• holding that the fact that a physician reported that the claimant was “doing well” could mean that they were “doing well for someone with a kidney transplant,” not that they were not disabled
• explaining that a doctor’s note that a claimant “continue[d] to do well” was not inconsistent with the claimant’s complaints of pain (alteration omitted)
• noting that borderline intelligence should be considered by vocational expert
• describing a claimant as “‘in remission’ [or] ‘has stabilized’ does not mean that [the claimant’s] symptoms have gone away or that they do not exist”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).