Lane County Bar Association Affinity Bar Event 6/16/22

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.

9th Cir. case addressing the appointment of the SSA commissioner issue

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);

Navigating the ADA Interactive Process—Advice for Newer Lawyers – June 9 Online CLE

Labor & Employment Section-sponsored CLE

Navigating the ADA Interactive Process–Advice for
Newer Lawyers
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

Click here to register.

9th Cir. case re: 2017 Social Security medical opinion regulations

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.

SCOTUS decision re: SSI benefits in Puerto Rico

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.

4/26 Lunch and Learn: Providing Court Services to People Who are Elderly or Disabled

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
Password: VpFCvy8j$36

Join by video system
Dial [email protected]
You can also dial 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]

“College disability rights case could go to Supreme Court — a possibility advocates fear”

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: