Rick Hammond v. Nancy Berryhill
688 F. App'x 486
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Rick Hammond applied for Social Security disability; an ALJ in 2007 found him not disabled.
- Hammond challenged the 2007 decision in district court raising evidentiary and pain-testimony arguments; the district court rejected those but found inconsistent vocational expert (VE) testimony and remanded limited to resolving VE discrepancies. Hammond did not appeal that order.
- On remand an ALJ issued a 2011 decision again finding Hammond not disabled; the decision largely mirrored the 2007 decision but addressed VE testimony differently.
- Hammond sought review of the 2011 decision, reasserting many arguments the district court had already rejected in 2009 and also challenging a 2010 physical-therapist statement (DonTigny).
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Commissioner; the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) law of the case bars re-litigation of issues decided in 2009, and (2) the ALJ properly discounted DonTigny’s 2010 statement and relied on the RFC and VE testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hammond can relitigate issues the district court rejected in 2009 | Hammond argued those issues could be reconsidered after remand | Commissioner argued res judicata/issue preclusion and that remand was limited | Law of the case bars re-litigation; Hammond cannot relitigate issues already rejected |
| Whether remand order or Appeals Council misled Hammond into not appealing | Hammond claimed he was misled and thus shouldn’t be bound | Commissioner pointed to Appeals Council language limiting remand to VE discrepancies and noting a final judgment accompanied by remand | Court rejected Hammond’s claim; Appeals Council did not mislead him |
| Whether new 2010 physical-therapist statement required different RFC | Hammond argued DonTigny’s 2010 statement changed the record | Commissioner argued statement was cumulative, from a non-acceptable medical source, and dated long after relevant period | ALJ properly gave little weight to it; it was cumulative and not from an acceptable source |
| Whether ALJ’s VE hypotheticals were improper based on RFC | Hammond argued hypotheticals were defective and VE testimony unreliable | Commissioner argued RFC and hypotheticals were unchanged and previously upheld | Court held challenge derivative of prior RFC; law of the case bars attacking the RFC so VE use was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Park Place Assocs., Ltd., 563 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2009) (distinguishing law of the case from issue preclusion when prior decision was not a final adjudication)
- Stacy v. Colvin, 825 F.3d 563 (9th Cir. 2016) (law of the case doctrine applies in social security context)
- Old Person v. Brown, 312 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2002) (court ordinarily precluded from reexamining issues previously decided by same court)
- Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U.S. 617 (U.S. 1990) (a district court remand under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a final, appealable judgment even with remand)
- Evans v. Chater, 110 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1997) (appellate court may affirm on any ground supported by the record even if district court relied on wrong reasoning)
- Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685 (9th Cir. 2009) (substantial-evidence standard governs review of ALJ disability determinations)