Alaska Employment Law

The 9th Circuit panel that heard arguments in Fairbanks, Alaska, on August 10th has now resolved all of the Social Security appeals before it.  The panel was composed of Judges Wallace, Noonan, and Paez.

In three of the opinions, the panel outright reversed the District Court.

In Hornbeck v. Astrue, 2007 WL 2693724 (9th Cir. Sept. 10, 2007), the 9th Circuit reversed the District Court, holding that the ALJ had committed legal error when he refused to accept the pro se applicant’s medical records from a time earlier than the onset of her identified disability.  The earlier records “could have helped resolve ambiguities as to the vicissitudes in Hornbeck’s health and the causes of her maladies other than [the earlier medical issue].” 

In McCollough v. Astrue, 2007 WL 2669775 (9th Cir. Sept. 7, 2007), the court reversed the District Court because “substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s determination . . . that McCullough did not suffer any severe medical impairments that limited his ability to work.”  The Court noted that a psychological (rather than physical) origin of pain does not, per se, disqualify the disability applicant from benefits.

In Struck v. Astrue, 2007 WL 2565208 (9th Cir. Sept. 6, 2007), the Court again reversed the District Court, finding that the ALJ failed to fulfill his “heightened duty to develop the record because Struck was unrepresented at both hearings and suffered from a severe mental impairment.”  The Court found the error was not harmless.

In the other cases, the Court affirmed the District Court on procedural grounds. 

In Manser v. Astrue, 2007 WL 2471226 (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2007), the applicant sought a writ of mandamus to represent a class of individuals subjected to allegedly defective agency hearings.  The District Court dismissed his Complaint.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that Manser “has failed to establish circumstances warranting such extraordinary relief; he has not identified any systemic errors, and the facts of his case reflect an individual error already remedied.”  In an unappealed decision, the District Court had restored Manser’s individual benefits. 

The Court dismissed the appeal in the second matter, Reed-Goss v. Astrue, 2007 WL 2669773 (9th Cir. Sept. 7, 2007), because the (pro se) applicant had failed to file a timely appeal to the District Court from the Commissioner’s decision, and because she sought to challenge the Commissioner’s decision not to re-open her case, agency action that is non-reviewable.

All of the applicants were represented on appeal by Fairbanks practitioner Paul Eaglin.   Richard Pomeroy from the Anchorage U. S. Attorney’s Office and several attorneys from the Social Security office in Seattle represented the Commissioner. 

Judge Ralph Beistline issued the District Court decision in each of the matters except Struck, which was Judge Singleton’s.