Davis v. Colvin

1 Citing case

  1. Amy H. v. Berryhill

    No. 17 CV 4559 (N.D. Ill. May. 10, 2019)   Cited 3 times
    In Amy H., the court ordered a remand to further develop the record, despite claimant's counsel's indication that the record was complete, because the handwritten notes of claimant's sole treating psychiatrist were illegible but “crucial” to claimant's claim.

    Williams v. Astrue, No. ED CV 08-549-PLA, 2010 WL 431432, at *7 (C.D.Cal. Feb. 1, 2010); Davis v. Colvin, No. CV 13-03082 LB, 2014 WL 4954057, at *12 (N.D.Cal. Sept. 30, 2014) (same). Consequently, a remand may be required to further develop the record when the record is inadequate to make a determination as to whether the claimant is disabled even where (as here) the claimant's attorney indicates that the record is complete.