Opinion

Yackell v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board

  • 599 F. App'x 306
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Filed
Mar 20, 2015
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Farris, Wardlaw, Paez
Nature of suit
Agency
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 34.2%

The opinion

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 20 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DENNIS YACKELL, No. 13-70440

Petitioner, RRB No. 11-AP-0035

v. MEMORANDUM*

U.S. RAILROAD RETIREMENT

BOARD,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Railroad Retirement Board

Submitted March 10, 2015**

Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Dennis Yackell petitions pro se for review of the Railroad Retirement

Board’s decision affirming the hearings officer’s determinations concerning

Yackell’s entitlement to disability benefits. We have jurisdiction under 45 U.S.C.

§ 231g. We deny the petition for review.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

**

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Substantial evidence and governing law support the Board’s decision that

Yackell was disabled for all substantial gainful activity as of February 1, 1998, but

was not in insured status on that date and thus was not entitled to a period of

disability under section 216(i) of the Social Security Act. See Calderon v. U.S.

R.R. Ret. Bd., 780 F.2d 812, 813 (9th Cir. 1986) (Board’s findings reviewed for

substantial evidence).

The Board’s decision that Yackell’s disability annuity began on March 1,

2007, one year prior to his application, is also supported. See 45 U.S.C. § 231d(a)

(a disability annuity may begin the first day of the sixth month after the onset of

the disability or the first day of the twelfth month prior to the date the application

for benefits was filed, whichever is later).

We reject Yackell’s contentions concerning the Board’s handling of his

earlier applications.

Yackell’s opposed motion to supplement the administrative record, filed on

January 13, 2014, is denied. See 45 U.S.C. § 355(f) (“No additional evidence shall

be received by the court[.]”)

Yackell’s motion to expedite the appeal, filed on January 30, 2015, is

granted.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 13-70440

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.