Sue Wright v. Carolyn Colvin

MEMORANDUM

Sue Marie Wright appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

The district court did not deny Wright due process by ruling from the bench rather than issuing a written decision. The district court’s oral ruling, recorded in a written transcript, together with the administrative record, provide sufficient facts and reasoning to allow Wright an understanding of the disposition of her case, and to enable an informed review by this court. See Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1226 (9th Cir.2009) (explaining that meaningful review of an administrative decision requires access to the facts and reasons supporting that decision); cf. United States v. Sesma-Hernandez, 253 F.3d 403, 405 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (holding that “oral findings on a transcribed record are sufficient to meet the ‘in writing’ requirement of due process” for a district court’s decision in a criminal case to revoke supervised release).

The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) did not err in…