The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed November 12, 2010.
Ian Michael Sammis, Esquire, Ian M. Sammis, Esq., San Rafael, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Donna Wade Anderson, Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Vaughn R. Walker, Chief District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 3:03-cv-04124-VRW.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Commissioner. Jennifer Walter has presented no evidence of claimant Janet Garfield's mental incapacity during the sixty-day period following the Appeals Council's 1997 decision, see 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Social Security Ruling (SSR) 91-5p, 1991 WL 208067, at * 1, and has shown neither a nexus between the Commissioner's alleged fraudulent concealment and her inability to file suit in a timely manner, as is required for equitable estoppel, nor an inability to obtain vital information bearing on the existence of her claim during the tolling period, as is required for equitable tolling, see Huseman v. Icicle Seafoods, 471 F.3d 1116, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2006). We also affirm the district court's decision not to exercise its mandamus jurisdiction over Walter's complaint because the Commissioner has no "clear nondiscretionary duty" to reopen lapsed claims, Johnson v. Shalala, 2 F.3d 918, 924 (9th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Briggs v. Sullivan, 886 F.2d 1132, 1142 (9th Cir. 1989)). Walter's argument that the Special Disability Workload (SDW) process created a "clear nondiscretionary duty" for the Commissioner to reopen Garfield's claim fails because Garfield was never eligible for the SDW.