White v. Astrue

Filing 45

ORDER of USCA re 40 Notice of Appeal filed by Dean C. White. The decision of the district court is affirmed. (mclS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2013)

Download PDF
Case: 11-17306 05/02/2013 ID: 8612695 DktEntry: 35-1 Page: 1 of 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 02 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS DEAN C. WHITE, No. 11-17306 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-02124-CRB v. MEMORANDUM * MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted April 16, 2013 San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. Dean White appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner. We have jurisdiction to consider the due process claim and * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Case: 11-17306 05/02/2013 ID: 8612695 DktEntry: 35-1 Page: 2 of 2 review the administrative decision for substantial evidence. Udd v. Massanari, 245 F.3d 1096, 1099-1100 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm. Substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s finding that Social Security Ruling 91-5p does not apply because White was represented by a non-attorney when he applied for benefits and sought reconsideration of the denial of benefits in 1990 and 1991. White’s request for reconsideration designated Carol Nuss, a paralegal and friend, in writing as his non-attorney representative. It was signed by both Nuss and White and filed with the Social Security office. This written designation substantially complied with 20 C.F.R. § 416.1507. Because at least one of the reasons provided by the administrative law judge for exercising his discretion to deny the motion to reopen is supported by substantial evidence, White’s due process claim fails. AFFIRMED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?