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.
Multnomah County Circuit Court Lunch and Learn: Providing Court Services to People Who are Elderly or Disabled
Facilitated by Judge Morgan Long
12-1 p.m. on 4/26
Speakers: The Honorable Patrick Henry, Chief Probate Judge, and Mark Sanford, MG, Program Manager, Multnomah County Public Guardian and Conservator at Multnomah County
This presentation is one of a series offered to court employees and judges. All are welcome. There is no charge to attend.
Join via video or phone:
Meeting number: 2484 296 9322
Join by video system
Dial [email protected]
You can also dial 22.214.171.124 and enter your meeting number.
Join by phone
+1.408.418-9388 United States Toll
Access code: 248 429 69322
Contact: Roger Rand, [email protected]
Plaintiffs, who are blind, have won lawsuits in federal court against Los Angeles Community College District, for the school’s failure to provide accommodations necessary to provide equal access to education for Plaintiffs. The LACCD is deciding whether to appeal to the Supreme Court, as the school maintains they did not violate federal law. Read more herE: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-02/disability-rights-case-against-laccd-could-go-to-supreme-court
The Office of Equity and Human Rights’ Community Engagement Liaison(CEL) program is seeking Portlanders with communication disabilities to test digital content (primarily documents produced in Word, PowerPoint, or as PDFs). This is paid, flexible, periodic work. Share your perspective and help make our community more accessible by providing feedback on the accessibility of digital content CEL will host an informational meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 22, from 5:30 to 6:30 p.m.
Join Zoom Meeting
Questions? email: [email protected]
Welcome to the new Executive Committee:
Chair: Emily Cooper
Chair Elect: Debra Maryanov
Past Chair: Tiffany Blackmon
Treasurer: Jan Atwill
Secretary: Rebecca Babarsky
Members at Large: Terisa Page, Bill Spiry, and Renee Caubisens
A complaint, filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is one of the first federal lawsuits seeking disability benefits based solely on post-Covid ailments under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Read more on the case here: https://www.bloomberglaw.com/product/blaw/bloomberglawnews/bloomberg-law-news/X80BMA3G000000
“Surviving members of same-sex couples who weren’t able to marry because it wasn’t yet legal may now be eligible for survivor benefits from Social Security.” Read the New York Times article here: More Same-Sex Couples May be Eligible for Social Security Survivor Benefits