Cappa v. Barnhart
This text of 95 F. App'x 878 (Cappa v. Barnhart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Appellant Mary Cappa appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security on Cappa’s complaint seeking review of the Commissioner’s termination of her Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits.
Cappa first claims that the district court erred by finding that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) was supported by substantial evidence. Both documentary evidence and the testimony of multiple experts, however, supports the ALJ’s finding that Cappa’s alleged depressive disorder and pulmonary impairment failed, singly or in combination, to meet or equal a listed impairment under 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart (P), App. 1.
Cappa also claims error in the ALJ’s ruling that she was not an essential witness and that her hearing improperly proceeded in her absence. The ALJ found that Cappa was a non-essential witness because this hearing was held for the limited purpose of supplementing the record with additional expert testimony and medical evidence following a remand by the Appeals Council. Cappa had previously testified before the ALJ. She was not essential to this hearing.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
95 F. App'x 878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cappa-v-barnhart-ca9-2004.