W.c., Plaintiff-appellee, v. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary, Health and Human Services,defendant-appellant, 819 F.2d 237 (9th Cir. 1987)
Annotate this CaseDept. of Justice, Howard S. Scher, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellant.
Schroeter, Goldmark & Bender, William Rutzick and Kristin Houser, Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BROWNING, WRIGHT and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC AND AMENDING OPINION
The panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing, and Judges Browning and Beezer have voted to reject the suggestion for a rehearing en banc.
The full court has been advised of the suggestion for an en banc hearing, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on it. Fed. R. App. P. 35(b).
The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for a rehearing en banc is rejected.
The opinion filed on January 13, 1987, 807 F.2d 1502 (9th Cir.), is amended as follows:
Page 1505, first column, line 23: Correct to read administrative law judges and the Appeals Council.
Page 1506, first column, line 5, insert: Furthermore, the effect of the program on the Appeals Council's impartiality militates against reinstating their decisions. See Barry v. Heckler, 620 F. Supp. 779, 782 (N.D. Cal. 1985).
Change the next sentence to read: We agree with the district court that the ALJ's decisions must be reinstated and the claimants provided disability benefits.
Page 1506, footnote 8: Delete the words: previously awarded.
Page 1505, first column, last paragraph, starting with "Here, claimants": Delete the paragraph.
Page 1505, second column, line 25, add: Cf. Stoddard Lumber Co., Inc. v. Marshall, 627 F.2d 984, 986-88 (9th Cir. 1980) (inspection procedure not an exercise of delegated legislative power).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
