Stacy v. Colvin, No. 13-36025 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff appealed the denial of his social security benefits. In a case of first impression, the court held that the law of the case doctrine and the rule of mandate apply to social security administrative remands from federal court in the same way they would apply to any other case. In this case, the court concluded that, given the new evidence - highly probative testimony about plaintiff's ability to perform his past work and a new finding supporting that testimony - the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply the law of the case doctrine. Given the expansive remand orders in this case, the ALJ did not violate the rule of mandate. The court also held that the ALJ properly categorized plaintiff’s past work and correctly found that he was still able to perform that work as it is generally performed in the national economy. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Social Security. The panel affirmed the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of a claimant’s application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. The panel held that the law of the case doctrine and the rule of mandate apply to social security administrative remands from federal court in the same way they would apply to any other case. The panel further held that neither doctrine barred the administrative law judge from reexamining claimant’s ability to perform his past work at step four of the sequential evaluation process under the mandate in this case. The panel also held that the ALJ properly categorized claimant’s past work, and the ALJ’s step four findings were supported by substantial evidence because the claimant could perform his past work as it was generally performed in the national economy.
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.