666 Fed.Appx. 607 (9th Cir. 2016), 14-15258, Maines v. Colvin

Docket Nº:14-15258
Citation:666 Fed.Appx. 607
Party Name:RENEE MAINES, for L.M. (a minor), Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee
Attorney:For RENEE MAINES, for L.M. (a minor), Plaintiff - Appellant: Jamie Lisagor, Pacifica Law Group, Seattle, WA. For CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee: Urmila R. Taylor, Assistant Regional Counsel, Social Security Administration, San Francisco, CA.
Judge Panel:Before: HAWKINS and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and SOTO,[***] District Judge.
Case Date:November 10, 2016
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 607

666 Fed.Appx. 607 (9th Cir. 2016)

RENEE MAINES, for L.M. (a minor), Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee

No. 14-15258

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

November 10, 2016

Argued and Submitted, San Francisco, California October 21, 2016

Editorial Note:

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. D.C. No. 3:12-cv-04889-JCS. Joseph C. Spero, Chief Magistrate Judge, Presiding. [**]

REVERSED and REMANDED.

For RENEE MAINES, for L.M. (a minor), Plaintiff - Appellant: Jamie Lisagor, Pacifica Law Group, Seattle, WA.

For CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee: Urmila R. Taylor, Assistant Regional Counsel, Social Security Administration, San Francisco, CA.

Before: HAWKINS and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and SOTO,[***] District Judge.

Page 608

MEMORANDUM [*]

On behalf of her minor daughter, L.M., Renee Maines appeals the district court's order affirming the Social Security Commissioner's denial of L.M.'s application for Supplemental Security Income benefits from ages six through eighteen.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing the district court's decision de novo and the determination of the administrative law judge (" ALJ" ) for substantial evidence, Dale v. Colvin, 823 F.3d 941, 943 (9th Cir. 2016), we reverse and remand.

Maines contends that the ALJ erred by evaluating L.M.'s claim under the versions of Listings 109.00 and 109.08 that went into effect on June 7, 2011--more than two years after L.M. filed her application for benefits and after L.M.'s claim had already been decided initially and on reconsideration. We agree. A claimant's eligibility for benefits, once determined, is effective based on the date his or her application is filed. 42 U.S.C. § 1382(c)(7). Absent express direction from Congress to the contrary, the ALJ should have continued to evaluate L.M.'s application under the listings in effect at the time she filed her application.2 See Ball...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP