The Disability Law Section will hold our annual meeting on Friday, September 23, at Sellwood Park from 3:00 – 5:00 pm.
Join us for appetizers from Nicholas Restaurant.
Family members, including children and pets, are welcome.
We have tables reserved in Picnic Area I, located in the far northeast corner of the park near the parking lot on SE 7th. The site is wheelchair accessible. A map of the park can be found here: DLS Annual Meeting Map
We look forward to seeing you!
“People experiencing a mental health crisis have a new way to reach out for help in the U.S. Starting [July 16th, 2022], they can simply call or text the numbers 9-8-8.
Modeled after 911, the new three-digit 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline is designed to be a memorable and quick number that connects people who are suicidal or in any other mental health crisis to a trained mental health professional.”
For further information:
The Disability Law Section is sponsoring a free, hour-long CLE on secondary trauma in the legal profession. The presenter is a therapist who treats attorneys and other legal professionals.
It will be held on Tuesday, June 14th from noon to 1pm on Zoom. You can register and find out more about this presentation here: https://ebiz.osbar.org/ebusiness/Meetings/Meeting.aspx?ID=5142
We hope to see you there!
The Lane County Bar Association’s Diversity Equity and Inclusion Committee is hosting an event 6/16/22 from 5-7PM, for affinity bar members to meet and enjoy refreshments and music. Family members, including children, welcome. The event will go forward rain and hopefully shine.
Respond here if you haven’t RSVPed yet to let them know you are attending, and they will send you directions and the location. Questions? Contact Felipe Alonso III at [email protected] or 541-346-3809.
Many Social Security reps have been appealing cases on the issue that appointment of the former SSA commissioner was tainted by an unconstitutional statute that governed the President’s removal authority over the Commissioner. The 9th Cir. has now held that claimant must demonstrate that the unconstitutional provision actually caused the claimant harm. Without demonstration of such harm, a claimant is not entitled to a remedy, despite the unconstitutionality of the statute. Read the case: Kauffman v.
Kijakazi, — F.4th –, 21-48844, 2022 WL 1233238 (9th Cir. April 27, 2022); https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/04/27/21-35344.pdf.
“On April 7 a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that two related employers may be treated as one integrated employer to meet the 15-employee headcount threshold under the Americans with Disabilities Act.” Read more here: https://www.law360.com/employment-authority/articles/1492381/what-9th-circ-ada-ruling-means-for-closely-related-entities
When Acting Commissioner Dr. Kilolo Kijakazi spoke to NOSSCR conference attendees during the opening session of our annual conference in Austin, she announced that, after considering information provided by NOSSCR, the fee cap will be raised to $7200 effective November 30, 2022. Read more here: https://nosscr.org/acting-commissioner-credits-nosscr-for-first-fee-cap-raise-in-13-years/
Labor & Employment Section-sponsored CLE
Navigating the ADA Interactive Process–Advice for
Thursday, June 9, 2022; Noon – 1:30 p.m; CLE Credits: 1.5 General (pending); Location: Virtual – Zoom
Come learn about the Americans with Disabilities Act and what is required of employees and employers navigating the interactive process. This virtual CLE is geared towards new attorneys and will provide practical skills for requesting and responding to requests for reasonable accommodations, engaging in the interactive process, and providing reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities. Bring your questions and ideas for what promises to be an informative, practical, and thought-provoking CLE!
$0 Law Students (enter coupon code SLEB22LS to receive complimentary registration)
$25 New Lawyers admitted after 1/1/17
$25 Labor & Employment Section Members (no discount code necessary, the system will recognize your section membership status when you are logged in)
$35 Regular Registration
The panel affirmed the district court’s decision which affirmed the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of claimant’s application for benefits under the Social Security Act.
The panel held that recent changes to the Social Security Administration’s regulations displaced the prior case law requiring an ALJ to provide “specific and legitimate” reasons to reject an examining doctor’s opinion. For claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, which are subject to the new regulations, the former hierarchy of medical opinions – in which the court assigned presumptive weight based on the extent of the doctor’s relationship with the claimant – no longer applies. While the panel agreed with the Commissioner that the “specific and legitimate” standard was irreconcilable with the 2017 regulations, the panel held that the extent of the claimant’s relationship with the medical provider remains relevant under the new regulations. An ALJ may consider the length and purpose of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examinations, the kinds and extent of examinations that the medical source has performed or ordered, and whether the medical source has examined the claimant or only reviewed the claimant’s records. However, the ALJ no longer needs to make specific findings regarding those relationship factors. Even under the new regulations, an ALJ cannot reject an examining or treating doctor’s opinion as unsupported or inconsistent without providing an explanation that is supported by substantial evidence.
Here, the ALJ acknowledged Dr. Causeya’s opinion that the claimant had marked and extreme limitations in multiple cognitive areas of functioning, including memory and concentration, but the ALJ found this opinion unpersuasive because it was inconsistent with the overall treating notes and mental status exams. The panel held that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s inconsistency finding.
United States v. Vaella-Madero, 20-303
SCOTUS reversed a decision of the First Circuit, published at 956 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2020). SCOTUS held that the equal-protection component of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause did not require Congress to make Supplemental Security Income benefits available to residents of Puerto Rico to the same extent that Congress makes those benefits available to residents of the States.