holding that even though the ALJ provided “a relatively 23 detailed overview of claimant’s medical history, providing a summary of medical evidence 24 ... is not the same as providing clear and convincing reasons for finding the claimant's 25 symptom testimony not credible”
How later courts described this case
- holding that even though the ALJ provided “a relatively 23 detailed overview of claimant’s medical history, providing a summary of medical evidence 24 ... is not the same as providing clear and convincing reasons for finding the claimant's 25 symptom testimony not credible”
- holding that district courts retain authority to issue 23 certificates of appealability under AEDPA
- before plaintiffs could proceed on the new theory of liability 23 on summary judgment plaintiffs were required to either plead their new theory of liability in the 24 complaint or make it known during discovery that they intended to pursue the new theory of 25 liability omitted from the complaint
- “To determine whether the claimant’s testimony 23 regarding the severity of her symptoms is credible, the ALJ may consider . . . ordinary 24 techniques of credibility evaluation, such as . . . prior inconsistent statements concerning 25 the symptoms, and other testimony by the claimant that appears less than candid . . . .”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
June 6, 1994
PRESENT: MANSMANN, GREENBERG and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.
The petition for panel rehearing filed by the appellants in the above entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, the petition for panel rehearing is denied.