Case law

Ivie v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 28, 2021

Feb. 21, 2018) (“Ninth Circuit has not decided what qualifies as ‘substantially younger’” and [] “courts routinely require an age difference of at least six years.”) (citations omitted). … established until spring 2019.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Jensen

District Court, D. Oregon · May 23, 2022

The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). … “The reasons for limiting recovery to the amount actually expended for repair or replacement seem reasonable, and such a limitation should be enforced if it is clearly stated in the insurance contract.”

Lewis v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 5, 2020

That qualifies as a marked limitation in physical functioning. … [has] clearly caused her to be unable to sustain full time work since she stopped working in 2015.” AR 14. b.

Joshua v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 8, 2023

Kijakazi, 32 F. 4th 785, 792 (9th Cir. 2022) (“The revised social security regulations are clearly irreconcilable with our caselaw according special deference to the opinions of treating and examining physicians on account … Plaintiff argues that this error was harmful because, contrary to Williamson’s observations, the ALJ found that the record “does not establish any resulting functional limitations that would significantly affect the claimant

Smith v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 10, 2021

Dobles’s opinion, however, clearly states that she reviewed Dr. … App’x 446, 450 (9th Cir. 2020) (remanding for an award of benefits where, as here, an improperly discredited opinion and VE testimony established disability); Varela v. Saul, 827 F.

Meyer v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 15, 2019

Phelps “confirmed” that Plaintiff’s parents “observ[ed]” the same cycling of mood and energy, which are “quite substantial and clearly interfere[] with [Plaintiff’s] ability to progress functionally.” … and testimony that she rejected for legally insufficient reasons, our precedent and the objectives of the credit-as-true rule foreclose the argument that a remand for the purpose of allowing the ALJ to have a mulligan qualifies

Murphy v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 15, 2025

The initial burden of proof rests upon the claimant to establish disability. Howard v. Heckler, 782 F.2d 1484, 1486 (9th Cir. 1986). … Likewise, the written notes and observations from Plaintiff’s sessions with Stoner also fail to establish the proffered limitations.

Rayborn v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 22, 2023

The Commissioner has established a five-step process for determining whether a person is disabled. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140 (1987); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. … Then, at step five, the ALJ relied on testimony from a qualified vocational expert to find that plaintiff could perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy. Tr. 29-30.

Erickson v. Courtney

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 7, 2020

Specifically, counsel argued that the Utah school counselor qualified as an “other governmental agency.” The trial court rejected this argument. … A state court unreasonably applies clearly established federal law under § 2254(d)(1), if its decision is so lacking in justification that there is an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility

Trout Unlimited v. Lohn

645 F. Supp. 2d 929 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 13, 2007

Thus, a species is threatened if it is likely to qualify for endangered status within the foreseeable future. The ESA charged the Secretary of Commerce (“Secretary”) with listing marine and anadromous species. … The NWFSC review posits that the empirical record is too short and the cause- and-effect relationship behind recent escapements is too poorly established to support Oregon’s hypothesis.

Parchen v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 20, 2019

In step five, the Commissioner must establish that the claimant can perform other work. Yuckert, 482 U.S. at141–42; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) & (f), 416.920(e) & (f). … Alvord examined Plaintiff in 2012, she presented as “quite disheveled, malodorous with poor dentition” and he noted that “hygiene was clearly lacking.” Tr. 846.

In re Galena Biopharma, Inc. Securities Litigation

117 F. Supp. 3d 1145 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 5, 2015

DreamTeam and Lidingo did so, often using third parties and aliases that falsely claimed to be established, credible investment professionals. … Novel or atypical methods should not provide immunity from the securities laws.’ ” (emphasis in original) (quoting A.T. Brod & Co. v.

Sommer v. Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 9, 2024

Thus, Regence argues that Sommer falls short of establishing that exhaustion was “demonstrably doomed to fail.” (Id. at 8.) … Third, Sommer argues that by denying his coverage claim, Sommer lost the “reasonable opportunity to challenge in ‘real time’ . . . the availability of qualified in-network providers . . . to perform the [surgery.]”

Dunkel v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 10, 2022

It is important that these findings be made at all levels of adjudication to clearly establish the basis for the determination or decision for the claimant and for a reviewing body including a Federal district court. … As SSR-82-14 explains, written findings are crucial to “clearly establish the basis for the determination or decision for the claimant and for a reviewing body including a Federal district court.”). SSR 82-14.

Jett v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 7, 2023

Because the ALJ found no impairment qualifying Plaintiff as disabled, the ALJ assessed Plaintiff’s RFC before moving to step four of the sequential analysis. AR 30-37. … The standard for nonmedical opinion testimony has previously been established by the courts and did not need to be explained in a regulation changing how medical testimony was to be evaluated.

Campbell-Turner v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 16, 2020

Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia symptoms include daily pain, fatigue, and difficulty concentrating and thinking clearly, which she called “fibro fog” or “brain fog.” Tr. 38, 267. … out certain minimal activities does not detract from credibility as to overall disability or meet threshold for transferable work skills); Molina, 674 F.3d at 1112– 13 (the claimant need not vegetate in a dark room to qualify

Kiss v. Best Buy Stores

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 6, 2022

Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 52 (1999); see also Sutton, 192 F.3d at 838-39 (“To accept Plaintiff’s argument [that a private business qualifies as a state actor] would be to convert every [business] . . . into a governmental … Fla. 2021) (dismissing Section 1983 claim challenging mask mandate under the Emergency Use Authorization Act because “the FDCA clearly states that its requirements may only be enforced by the United States government[

Adasa Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corporation

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 15, 2021

The established profitability of the product made under the patent; its commercial success; and its current popularity. 9. … The opinion testimony of qualified experts. 15.

Great American Alliance Insurance Company v. SIR - Columbia Knoll Associates, Limited Partnership

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 4, 2020

The rules of evidence do not apply to “any preliminary question about whether a witness is qualified.” Fed. R. Evid. 104. … Clearly one cannot occupy a building if it has completely fallen down or caved in. However, the same may be true for a building which has partially fallen down or caved in.

Heino v. U.S. Center for Medicare

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 22, 2023

“Federal question jurisdiction thus exists over a claim stating a cause of action under federal law unless the ‘allegation was clearly immaterial,’ or the claim was made ‘solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction … Thus, the Court is satisfied that the low hurdle to establish the causal-connection requirement has been met.