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

Defendant appealed his conviction for social security fraud pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 408(a)(5). The court held that the district court committed no reversible error in the formulation of jury instructions; the district court acted within its discretion when it admitted computer-generated records into evidence; the prosecutor's comments did not warrant reversal of defendant's conviction; the district court committed no error when it denied defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal; and 42 U.S.C. 408(a)(5) was not unconstitutionally vague. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

This case began as a dispute over the results of CM's special education evaluation under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. At issue on appeal was: (1) the ALJ's dismissal of several of CM's claims against Lafayette prior to holding a due process hearing; and (2) the district court's dismissal of MM's, CM's parents, separate claims against the California Department of Education (CDE). The court held that the district court correctly dismissed MM's claims against Lafayette challenging the ALJ's statute of limitations ruling as being premature. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the fourth claim as duplicative and correctly held that the CDE had no authority to oversee the individual decisions of OAH's hearing officers. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

This case stemmed from the denial of plaintiff's claim of social security disability benefits. At issue was whether the ALJ's handling of an ex parte contact was error, and if so, whether it was harmless. Because the ALJ erred by considering the ex parte evidence without allowing a supplementary hearing, the court was required to evaluate whether there was prejudice. The court concluded that there was no prejudice from the error where, considering the record as a whole, and the ALJ's explanation of his decision, the court was convinced that plaintiff had not demonstrated that the decision would have been any different without the ex parte communication. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Commissioner in its review of the Commissioner's denial of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Social Security Income (SSI) benefits. Based on the rarity of the surveillance system monitor jobs, and considering plaintiff's physical and mental limitations, the court was compelled to find that the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiff appealed the district court's decision affirming the Commission's denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under the Social Security Act (SSA), 42 U.S.C. 301 et seq. The court held that the ALJ did not err in weighing the evidence as she did or finding that plaintiff's testimony regarding the severity of her impairment was not credible. Although the ALJ erred in failing to give germane reasons for rejecting the lay witness testimony, such error was harmless given that the lay testimony described the same limitations as plaintiff's own testimony, and the ALJ's reasons for rejecting plaintiff's testimony applied with equal force to the lay testimony. Applying the principles set forth in the court's social security cases, as well as in Shinseki v. Sanders, the court upheld the ALJ's decision as supported by substantial evidence.

Plaintiff represented a class of legal immigrants in the state of Washington adversely affected by its recent termination of a state-funded food assistance program for legal immigrants, which exclusively benefitted Washington resident aliens who became ineligible for federal food stamps following the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, 8 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. Plaintiff contended that the state, by eliminating food assistance to class members while continuing to administer federal food assistance to U.S. citizens and certain qualified aliens, violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and, by failing to provide class members adequate pre-deprivation notice and opportunity to be heard, also violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Because plaintiff failed even to allege that the State treated her less favorably than a similarly situated citizen of the State, her claim of alienage discrimination failed on the merits. The court agreed with the State that plaintiff lacked the concrete and particularized interest required for standing to claim a procedural due process violation. Consequently, plaintiff either lacked standing or would not succeed on the merits of her claims. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's order granting the motion for a preliminary injunction, vacated the injunction, and remanded for further proceedings.

Defendant filed a due process hearing complaint with California's Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), alleging that he was being denied the free appropriate public education (FAPE) that he was entitled to under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. The court certified the following question to the California Supreme Court: Does California Education Code 56041 - which provided generally that for qualifying children ages eighteen to twenty-two, the school district where the child's parent resides is responsible for providing special education services - apply to children who are incarcerated in county jails? The case was withdrawn from submission and further proceedings were stayed pending final action by the Supreme Court of California.

This case involved A.S., a California minor, who was eligible for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. At issue was which California agency was responsible for funding A.S.'s educational placement in an out-of-state residential treatment facility. The court held as a matter of California law that the California agency responsible for funding A.S.'s education at an out-of-state residential treatment facility was the school district in which the student's parent, as defined by California Education Code section 56028, resided. The court held that A.S. had no parent under the 2005 version of section 56028 and thus, from July 28, 2006, when A.S. was placed at the out-of-state facility, until October 9, 2007, when an amended version of section 56028 took effect, California law did not designate any educational agency as responsible for A.S.'s education. The California Department of Education (CDE) was therefore responsible by default. The court held that A.S. did have a parent under the 2007 and 2009 versions of section 56028. CDE therefore was not responsible for A.S.'s out-of-state education after October 10, 2007, when the 2007 version of section 56028 took effect. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment.

Plaintiff, a minor who had been diagnosed with autism, appealed the district court's affirmance of the Hawaii Department of Education (DOE) hearing officer's decision that plaintiff's free and appropriate public education placement complied with the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. Plaintiff also claimed that his tuition reimbursement request for the 2007-2008 school year was timely, and that Loveland Academy was his "stay put" placement. The court held that Loveland Acadamy was not plaintiff's stay put placement because the DOE only agreed to pay tuition for the limited 2006-2007 school year and never affirmatively agreed to place plaintiff at Loveland Academy. The court also concluded that plaintiff's tuition reimbursement claim for the 2007-2008 school year was time-barred and that the district court did not err in finding that the 2007 and 2008 individualized education programs complied with IDEA requirements. Accordingly, the court affirmed the decision of the district court.

Plaintiffs, Washington Medicaid beneficiaries with severe mental and physical disabilities, appealed the district court's denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the operation of a regulation promulgated by Washington's DSHS that reduced the amount of in-home "personal care services" available under the state's Medicaid plan. The court concluded that plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable injury because they have shown that reduced access to personal care services would place them at serious risk of institutionalization. The court further concluded that plaintiffs have raised serious questions going to the merits of their Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12132, and Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794(a), claims, that the balance of hardships tipped sharply in their favor, and that a preliminary injunction would serve the public interest. Accordingly, the court remanded for entry of a preliminary injunction.