Justia U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Department appealed the district court’s order expanding a preliminary injunction forbidding the Department from decreasing the individual budgets of a class of participants in and applicants to Idaho’s Developmental Disabilities Waiver program (DD Waiver program) without adequate notice. The court rejected the Department's ripeness argument and concluded that the dispute is ripe for adjudication where plaintiffs alleged that they have already felt the effects of the Department's actions in a concrete way; the district court reasonably found that participants’ services are capped by their individual budgets under Idaho law; the district court also did not abuse its discretion in holding that plaintiffs were likely to show that the 2011 Budget Notices did not comply with the notice requirements of the Medicaid regulations; the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their claim that they were denied adequate notice under the Due Process Clause; the Department waived its argument that plaintiffs failed to show that the proposed class was likely to suffer irreparable harm; the court joined a number of its sister circuits in rejecting Eleventh Amendment challenges directed at orders reinstating social assistance benefits prospectively; and the court declined to exercise jurisdiction to review the district court’s order denying the motion to approve the 2013 Proposed Notice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "K.W. v. Armstrong" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, parents of a disabled student, filed suit under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq., seeking reimbursement by the DOE for the costs of attending a private program. The hearing officer denied the request for reimbursement, concluding that it was untimely under Haw. Rev. Stat. 302A-443(a). The district court held, however, that the student's placement by the parents was “bilateral,” not “unilateral,” so that the parents’ request was not untimely, and concluded that the parents were entitled to reimbursement. The court agreed and concluded that the student's family is entitled to reimbursement for the 2010–11 school year because the DOE tacitly consented to his enrollment at the private school program by failing to provide an alternative. The court also affirmed the district court's fee award. View "Sam K. v. Hawaii Dept. of Educ." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of her Social Security Disability Insurance benefits. The court concluded that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s determination that plaintiff was not eligible for disability benefits. In this case, the court concluded that the ALJ could have reasonably accorded little weight to the medical expert's opinion that plaintiff's condition equals the listing of fibromyalgia; the ALJ discounted the vocational expert's testimony for good reasons; the ALJ did not improperly weigh the testimony of the medical expert and the vocational expert about plaintiff's fibromyalgia; and substantial evidence did not support including migraines in the examination of the vocational expert. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Britton v. Colvin" on Justia Law

The Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services imposed a civil money penalty on Plott Nursing Home in California for Plott’s violations of the Medicare Act’s standards of care for nursing home patients. The Department’s Appeals Board largely affirmed. Plott petitioned for review. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) sufficient evidence supported the Secretary’s determination that Plott violated the quality of care for bed sores; (2) the Secretary’s finding that Plott violated the quality of care for urinary tract infections was not supported by substantial evidence on the record; and (3) Plott was entitled to administrative review of all cited deficiencies. Remanded with directions to review or dismiss the violations that were not reviewed by the agency. View "Plott Nursing Home v. Burwell" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's affirmance of the Commissioner's denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability benefits, arguing that the ALJ failed to reconcile an apparent conflict between his residual functional capacity (RFC) and the reasoning requirements of the jobs identified by the ALJ. The ALJ found that plaintiff retains the RFC to perform simple, routine, or repetitive tasks and that plaintiff was not disabled because he is still able to perform two occupations: cashier and surveillance system monitor. These occupations require the ability to perform Level 3 Reasoning on the Department of Labor's General Education Development scale. The court agreed with plaintiff's argument and held that there is an apparent conflict between plaintiff's limitation to simple, routine, or repetitive tasks and the demands of Level 3 Reasoning. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings because the ALJ failed to reconcile this apparent conflict. View "Zavalin v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of his application for social security disability benefits. The court concluded that substantial evidence supports neither the ALJ's rejection of plaintiff's testimony nor his rejection of the medical assessment by plaintiff's treating physician. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's affirmance of the denial of benefits. However, because the court has "serious doubt" as to whether plaintiff is, in fact, disabled under Garrison v. Colvin, the district court shall remand the case to the ALJ for further proceedings on an open record. On remand, the court did not require the ALJ to require as true plaintiff's testimony, the treating physician's assessment, or any other evidence. View "Burrell v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's judgment, affirming in part and reversing and remanding in part, the Commissioner's denial of his application for social security disability insurance. The court concluded that the ALJ erred in failing to provide specific reasons for rejecting plaintiff's testimony regarding the severity of his symptoms and, therefore, reversed the judgment of the district court affirming that portion of the ALJ's decision. The court also concluded that the record does not compel a finding of disability and, therefore, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Treichler v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of social security benefits on the basis that she was not intellectually disabled. Plaintiff had received social security benefits because of her intellectual disability but the SSA concluded that she no longer qualified as disabled once she reached the age of 18. The court concluded that the ALJ had a duty to order further IQ testing and the ALJ's failure to do so was not harmless error. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.View "Garcia v. Comm's of Soc. Sec." on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals, C.M's parents challenged the district court's decision affirming the OAH judge's conclusion that the District did not violate the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400-1487. The parents argued that the District violated the procedural requirements of the IDEA because it failed to properly incorporate C.M's Response-to-Intervention (RTI) data into C.M.'s initial evaluation and it failed to provide them with C.M.'s RTI data. The court concluded that the District did not fail to incorporate the RTI data into the evaluation, but that it violated the IDEA's procedural requirements by failing to provide the parents with the RTI data; the District's procedural violations prevented the parents from meaningfully participating in the individualized education program (IEP) process; and the court remanded for reconsideration of whether the parents were entitled to reimbursement for the cost of private instruction because C.M. was denied a free appropriate public education, and for attorneys' fees. The parents also contested three of the district court's rulings related to the first two OAH proceedings. The court concluded that the district court properly concluded that the parents' claim for reimbursement of the cost of Dr. Guterman's evaluation was moot; properly concluded that the parents' due process rights were not violated by a change in the wording of the issue presented; and correctly determined that two of the three claims raised in the second OAH proceeding were time-barred. Finally, the court remanded for consideration of the parents' reevaluation retaliation claim and affirmed as to the remaining claims.View "M.M. v. Lafayette Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of his application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The court concluded that the ALJ improperly discounted the opinions of plaintiff's treating providers as to the severity of plaintiff's condition and his ability to work because the record revealed occasional indicia of improvement, a minimal capacity to perform basic chores, and some reliance by treating providers on plaintiff's self-reports. This was not an adequate evidentiary basis to reject the opinions of a treating physician or other treating providers. Even if plaintiff's expressed desire to receive disability benefits casts some doubt on the veracity of his testimony, standing alone, this scintilla of evidence cannot support an adverse credibility determination. Consequently, the ALJ's errors affected the ALJ's residual functional capacity assessment and his determination that plaintiff was unable to perform past relevant work as a kitchen helper and a commercial cleaner. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings.View "Ghanim v. Astrue" on Justia Law