Kathleen Burke v. Nancy Berryhill

Ninth Circuit

Kathleen Burke v. Nancy Berryhill

714 F. App'x 753

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 7, 2018

Docket16-35764

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 714 F. App'x 753 (Kathleen Burke v. Nancy Berryhill) 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.

Bluebook

Kathleen Burke v. Nancy Berryhill, 714 F. App'x 753 (9th Cir. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Kathleen Burke appeals the district court’s denial of her application for fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act following our remand of her previous Social Security disability benefits appeal. We review the district court’s order for an abuse of discretion. Decker v. Berryhill, 856 F.3d 659, 663 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

The district court did not improperly reconsider the merits of Burke’s disability claim. It properly focused on the nature and scope of our remand to determine whether both the government’s litigation position and ALJ’s position had a reasonable basis in fact and law. Id. at 664; Gardner v. Berryhill, 856 F.3d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 2017); Sampson v. Chater, 103 F.3d 918, 922 (9th Cir. 1996). It reasonably concluded that it did.

Nor did the district court ignore an independent reason for remand. Our holding that the ALJ failed to develop the record to support three of the adverse credibility findings was intertwined with and dependent upon our holding that the adverse credibility findings were unsupported by the record. We specifically rejected Burke’s argument that the ALJ otherwise failed to develop the record.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by holding that both the ALJ’s decision and the government’s litigation position had a reasonable basis in fact and law. Burke never disputed that she made inconsistent statements about her medical condition and why she stopped working. As a matter of law, inconsistent statements may support adverse credibility determinations. Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008). Finally, the district court could consider disagreement among the federal judges in deciding substantial justification. Meier v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 867, 873 (9th Cir. 2013); Lewis v. Barnhart, 281 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2002).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 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

MEMORANDUM **

Kathleen Burke appeals the district court’s denial of her application for fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act following our remand of her previous Social Security disability benefits appeal. We review the district court’s order for an abuse of discretion. Decker v. Berryhill, 856 F.3d 659, 663 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

The district court did not improperly reconsider the merits of Burke’s disability claim. It properly focused on the nature and scope of our remand to determine whether both the government’s litigation position and ALJ’s position had a reasonable basis in fact and law. Id. at 664; Gardner v. Berryhill, 856 F.3d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 2017); Sampson v. Chater, 103 F.3d 918, 922 (9th Cir. 1996). It reasonably concluded that it did.

Nor did the district court ignore an independent reason for remand. Our holding that the ALJ failed to develop the record to support three of the adverse credibility findings was intertwined with and dependent upon our holding that the adverse credibility findings were unsupported by the record. We specifically rejected Burke’s argument that the ALJ otherwise failed to develop the record.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by holding that both the ALJ’s decision and the government’s litigation position had a reasonable basis in fact and law. Burke never disputed that she made inconsistent statements about her medical condition and why she stopped working. As a matter of law, inconsistent statements may support adverse credibility determinations. Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008). Finally, the district court could consider disagreement among the federal judges in deciding substantial justification. Meier v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 867, 873 (9th Cir. 2013); Lewis v. Barnhart, 281 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2002).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

714 F. App'x 753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kathleen-burke-v-nancy-berryhill-ca9-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack