Dorothy Works brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her Disability Insurance Benefits application. After an earlier remand requiring further evaluation of her obesity, mental impairments, and reading/writing limitations, the ALJ conducted a second hearing and again found her not disabled under the five-step sequential evaluation process based on severe impairments including chronic low back pain, left shoulder tendinitis, myofascial pain syndrome, and major depression. The court examined the medical evidence, hearing testimony, residual functional capacity findings, and vocational expert opinions regarding jobs she could perform despite her limitations on walking, reaching, and complex tasks. The court determined that the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, particularly with respect to her intellectual functioning and reading abilities, and therefore reversed and remanded the matter for further proceedings.
Katherine Gunther sued the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration seeking judicial review of the denial of her Disability Insurance benefits application under the Social Security Act. The ALJ had found her not disabled at step four, determining she could perform past relevant work as a teacher aide despite her alleged impairments including chronic back pain, degenerative disk disease, obesity, anxiety, depression, and chronic pain syndrome. The court concluded the ALJ erred by improperly discounting Gunther's testimony, medical evidence, and the vocational expert's opinions on her limitations and transferable skills. Because the record satisfied the Smolen factors and would require a disability finding if the evidence were credited, the court reversed the Commissioner's decision.
In this criminal case, defendants Hock Chee Khoo and Thongsouk Soutavong were charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, theft of trade secrets, and computer fraud, along with related substantive counts, based on allegations that they and others used access to their employer The Hoffman Group's computer systems to steal trade secrets and compete with the company via a new entity. The court addressed two pretrial motions: one to exclude images and data from a company laptop and external hard drive obtained by the employer and later provided to the FBI, and another to compel the government to grant use immunity to a former IT administrator, Brian Emerson. The court granted the exclusion motion in part and denied it in part, finding that some digital evidence could be authenticated and had a sufficient chain of custody while other aspects raised reliability concerns, and it denied the immunity motion because the government had not selectively immunized its own witnesses and defendants could address any issues through cross-examination and subpoenas. The ruling relied on standards for admitting digital evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 901 and Ninth Circuit precedent on due process and immunity grants under Straub.
This case involves a dispute between PacifiCorp and Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County over a 1982 Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) under which PacifiCorp bought power from Grant. PacifiCorp sought declaratory relief and damages, claiming the PPA either terminated automatically in 2009 when a related transmission agreement with BPA expired or could be ended by PacifiCorp on reasonable notice. The court granted partial summary judgment to PacifiCorp, declaring that the PPA is of indefinite duration and terminable by PacifiCorp upon reasonable notice under Washington law, but denied that the PPA terminated automatically due to the parties' continued performance and that filing the lawsuit itself constituted reasonable notice. The court granted summary judgment to Grant on the breach of contract claim, finding no violation of express or implied terms. The rulings rested on contract interpretation of the PPA's term provision and Washington precedents on contracts lacking a fixed end date.
In Little v. Commissioner of Social Security, the plaintiff sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the denial of her applications for supplemental security income and child's insurance benefits based on disability. The district court reversed the ALJ's decision, which had found severe impairments including seizure disorder, asthma, depression, social phobia, and learning disorder but concluded they did not meet or equal a listed impairment and that the plaintiff could perform unskilled work. The court held that the ALJ failed to properly consider Listing 12.05C for intellectual disability and did not adequately credit lay witness testimony showing the plaintiff's significant limitations in daily functioning and self-care. Applying the five-step sequential evaluation process under the Social Security Act, the court determined the record established that the claimant could not engage in gainful employment and remanded for an immediate finding of disability.
