U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2001

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the finding that Mayes was not disabled because substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision and the ALJ applied the correct legal standard. It also affirmed the refusal to remand for a later herniated-disc diagnosis: the evidence did not show a reasonable possibility that the condition…

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's award of attorneys' fees to Susan Kanter and Sharon Plunk under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) after Pfizer's removal of their California class action was remanded. Although § 1447(d) bars review of remand orders, the panel—drawing on its same-day companion opinion in Gibson v.

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income to Joseph Bustamante. The panel held that the ALJ committed legal error by determining, at step two of the five-step sequential evaluation, that Bustamante's mental…

The court reversed the denial of disability benefits because the ALJ improperly discredited Vertigan’s pain testimony, misidentified her past relevant work, and lacked substantial evidence to find transferable skills or capacity for light work.

The court held that the ALJ gave sufficiently specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting the treating physician’s opinion, but erred by rejecting the examining psychologist’s uncontradicted evidence of mental impairment without clear and convincing reasons.

The Ninth Circuit denied Chebchoub's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of his asylum and withholding-of-deportation application. Reviewing for substantial evidence, the panel held that the Board's adverse credibility finding rested on specific, cogent reasons bearing a legitimate nexus…

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of Calhoun’s application to proceed in forma pauperis because his complaint sought monetary relief for conduct by defendants immune from suit.

The court held that the complaints adequately alleged First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations under § 1983, and that the district court could not resolve disputed factual matters or rely on extrinsic evidence when deciding those claims under Rule 12(b)(6).

The court affirmed dismissal of the § 1983 claims based on the Fifth and Eighth Amendments and equal protection, while reversing dismissal of the claims alleging First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Christopher Owens' and Cynthia Hutchins' Title VII action against Kaiser Foundation Health Plan on res judicata grounds.

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment and remanded because the ALJ failed to develop a complete record concerning Tonapetyan’s possible mental impairment.

The Ninth Circuit held that the district court had jurisdiction over Sisco’s substantive trademark claims, and that exhaustion and ripeness did not bar the action because Sisco challenged Brush’s trademark rights rather than Customs’ decision and the available administrative process offered no timely, adequate remedy.

The court reversed the judgment upholding the Commissioner’s denial of benefits because substantial evidence did not support the findings that Lewis could perform past relevant work or other jobs.