Harman

Harman v. Apfel

Good Law
2000 Daily Journal DAR 1765·203 F.3d 1151·2000 WL 177861·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1231·2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 2246
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 17, 2000No. 98-35780California4,493 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Fogel, J.

Today we hold that when a district court remands a disability benefits case to the Social Security Administration pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g), its decisión whether such a remand is for further proceedings or for an immediate payment of benefits is reviewable for abuse of discretion rather than de novo. Applying that standard to the facts presented by this appeal, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by remanding Appellant’s disability claim to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings rather, than for immediate payment of benefits, and we affirm the judgment of the district court.

I

A. Procedural History

Appellant applied for Title II Social Security disability insurance benefits and Title XVI Supplemental Security Income on April 20, 1994. After the denial of his initial application and denial upon reconsideration, Appellant was granted a hearing before an administrative law judge (the “ALJ”) on February 28, 1996. On June 25, 1996, the ALJ issued a Notice of Decision (“ALJ Decision”)' which found that Appellant was severely impaired but not disabled, and thereby not entitled to benefits, because he retained…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.