From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Walter ex Rel. Estate, Garfield v. Astrue

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Page 229
Nov 12, 2010
403 F. App'x 228 (9th Cir. 2010)


No. 09-15664.

Submitted November 4, 2010.

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.

Before: THOMAS and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and SETTLE, District Judge.

The Honorable Benjamin Hale Settle, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.


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.


Summaries of

Walter ex Rel. Estate, Garfield v. Astrue

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Page 229
Nov 12, 2010
403 F. App'x 228 (9th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

Walter ex Rel. Estate, Garfield v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:Jennifer WALTER, Administrator of the ESTATE OF Janet H. GARFIELD…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Page 229

Date published: Nov 12, 2010


403 F. App'x 228 (9th Cir. 2010)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Berryhill

In the context of judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Commissioner may be equitably estopped only…

Rogers v. Berryhill

gument does not explain why the complaint could not be filed on September 21 rather than September 22.…