Cases

659 F.3d 1228 (2011) Steven TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee. No. 10-35732. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 14, 2011.[*] Filed October 27, 2011. *1230 Ralph Wilborn, Wilborn & Wilborn, P.C., Green Valley

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge, dissenting: Because I believe that the ALJ’s Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) determination at step four reflects a rational interpretation of Dr. Bennett Goss’s opinion, I must respectfully dissent from the court’s decision. The ALJ credited Dr. Goss’s opinion that Taylor could not work if he was required “to be on his feet for any significant length of time.”

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge, dissenting: Because I believe that the ALJ’s Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) determination at step four reflects a rational interpretation of Dr. Bennett Goss’s opinion, I must respectfully dissent from the court’s decision. The ALJ credited Dr. Goss’s opinion that Taylor could not work if he was required “to be on his feet for any significant length of time.”

HEANEY, Circuit Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. It is difficult to understand why this case was not resolved before it reached our court. The Social Security Administration (SSA) determined that Taylor has been continually disabled since October 2, 1997. She suffers from multiple sclerosis, which is recognized by the SSA as a severe impairment. As a result of this impairment, she sometimes has difficu

PER CURIAM. Sheila H. Kershaw appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) based on the doctrine of res judicata. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Kershaw v. Commissioner, No. CA-02-131-1-T (W.D.N.C. Aug. 28, 2002). We disp

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-appellant Kathy Woolf appeals from a January 30, 2008 judgment entered by the District Court, affirming the denial of her application for child’s insurance benefits for her son and mother’s insurance benefits for herself by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”), following the death of her husband, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 402(d) and (g). We assume the parties’ familiarity with t

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-appellant Kathy Woolf appeals from a January 30, 2008 judgment entered by the District Court, affirming the denial of her application for child’s insurance benefits for her son and mother’s insurance benefits for herself by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”), following the death of her husband, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 402(d) and (g). We assume the parties’ familiarity with t

PER CURIAM: Does 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A) permit an award of attorney’s fees when a district court remands a case to the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) for further proceedings, and the Commissioner subsequently awards the claimant past-due benefits on remand? This consolidated appeal presents us with an opportunity to answer this precise question definitively. We find that § 406(b)(1)(A) permits attorney’s

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) M ILTON JOSEPH TAYLOR, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 15-cv-01468 (APM)

PER CURIAM: We VACATE our prior opinion in this case, issued on April 4, 2006, and replace it with the following opinion. Does 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A) permit an award of attorney’s fees when a district court remands a case to the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) for further proceedings, and

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge. Curtis Vincent appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny his application for supplemental security income. For reversal, Vincent argues the denial of benefits is not supported by substantial evidence because the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred in c

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DARRIN LENALD COOPER, No. 24-1084 BAP No. Appellant, 1:23-bk-1098 v. OPINION SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Appellee. Appeal from the Ninth Circuit

ORDER Honorable .Jennifer G. Zipps, United States District Judge Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation' issued by United States Magistrate Judge Eric J. Marko-vich. (Doc. 21.) Judge Markovich recommends the Court remand this matter to the Social Security Administration (SSA) for payment bf benefits. Defendant filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation, to which Plaintiff replied. (D

MEMORANDUM MALACHY E. MANNION, District Judge. Pending before the court is the report and recommendation- of Judge Mehalchick, (Doc. 15), recommending that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) be affirmed. Judge Mehalchick reviewed the record in this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s decision denying

WOOD, Circuit Judge. This is a somewhat unusual Social Security appeal. After an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rejected Nelson Taylor’s application for disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 423, he appealed and persuaded the district court to remand the case for an award of benefits. The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration is t

OPINION AND ORDER MARSH, District Judge. Plaintiff Kathleen J. Peterson seeks judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security that partially denied her applications for Disabled Widow’s Benefits (DWB) under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-403, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.

OPINION AND ORDER MARSH, District Judge. Plaintiff Kuestan Jalal Mahmood seeks judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1383f. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(e)(3). For the reasons that fol

OPINION FISHER, Circuit Judge: Mindy Brewes appeals an order of the district court affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-434. We must decide, among other things, whether the district court should have considered

BLACK, Circuit Judge: Donnell Mitchell appeals the district court’s order affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of his application for supplemental security income (SSI) and the Appeals Council’s decision denying his request for review. On appeal, Mitchell contends substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s credibility determination and that the Appeals Coun

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER SPATT, District Judge. The Plaintiff Karen Anne Miller (“Miller” or the “Plaintiff’) seeks review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) that she was not disabled during the relevant time periods and, therefore, she was not entitled to disability benefits on her own earnings record or disabled widows’ benefits as provided for in T