finding the ALJ did not err in his RFC finding and rejecting a 12 claimant’s challenge to an ALJ’s step five analysis on the basis that the vocational expert’s 13 testimony was not based on an incomplete hypothetical posed by the ALJ
How later courts described this case
- finding the ALJ did not err in his RFC finding and rejecting a 12 claimant’s challenge to an ALJ’s step five analysis on the basis that the vocational expert’s 13 testimony was not based on an incomplete hypothetical posed by the ALJ
- affirming dismissal with prejudice of prolix, argumentative, and 12 redundant amended Complaint that did not comply with Rule 8(a)
- distinguishing “good cause” showing for 12 sealing documents produced in discovery from “compelling reasons” standard when 13 merits-related documents are part of court record
- “The standard for injury in fact is whether [the plaintiff] 12 has encountered at least one barrier that interfered with her access to the particular public 13 facility and whether she intends to return or is deterred from returning to that facility.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
Dec. 29, 1993.
The petition for rehearing filed by appellant in the above-entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated- in the decision of this Court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is denied.