A federal judge ruled the No Surprises Act gives out-of-network providers no right to sue in court to enforce arbitration awards against health plans like Blue Shield of California.
A federal magistrate judge reversed and remanded a Social Security disability denial because the ALJ’s decision never addressed the claimant’s mother’s testimony about her frequent, fluid-triggered need to self-catheterize.
A federal magistrate judge ruled that ICE violated due process by re-detaining a noncitizen without notice before locking him up, but ordered only a prompt bond hearing rather than immediate release given his post-release arrest record.
The CPUC could not retroactively demand millions under reimbursement rules that failed to give fair notice and that agency staff themselves viewed as unclear.
The Ninth Circuit required immigration authorities to consider a sworn claim that counsel’s advice caused a missed removal hearing.
The court ordered an immediate Social Security benefits award after finding that the agency mishandled extensive migraine evidence and testimony establishing work-preclusive absences.
The court affirmed denial of Social Security benefits because medical evidence, treatment response, daily activities, and part-time work supported discounting the claimant’s symptom testimony.
The court reversed a Social Security denial and ordered further proceedings because the agency inadequately evaluated claimant testimony and a treating provider’s opinions.
The court denied and partly dismissed an immigration detainee’s bond challenge because hardship equities were outside its limited review and the administrative appeal remained pending.
The court reversed a disability-benefits denial because the agency inadequately discounted the claimant’s symptom testimony and the error affected the functional analysis.
The court held that an immigrant’s re-detention violated due process and required advance notice and a neutral hearing before any future re-detention.
The court ordered a DACA recipient immediately released, holding that deferred action supported a protected liberty interest and the government had not justified detention.
A court ordered a new immigration bond hearing because inadequate advance notice denied the detainee a meaningful opportunity to prepare and present release evidence.