Legal Opinion
Harman v. Apfel
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided February 17, 2000No. 98-35780PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FOGEL, District Judge:
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…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Pierce v. UnderwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Smolen v. ChaterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- Lester v. ChaterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- Reddick v. ChaterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- Elizabeth J. HAMMOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis BOWEN, Secretary, Department of Health & Human Services, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Linnie Nelson v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social SecurityCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2000
- Mendoza v. ApfelDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2000
- Adamson v. BarnhartCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Halray Harman,plaintiff-Appellant v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner Order and of the Social Security Amended Administration,opinionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Nelson, Linnie v. Apfel, Kenneth S.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2000