That wasn't an accurate statement of the law and warranted removal from the decision. The panel turned down the heat in the warring panels.
"Only when all factual issues in the record have been resolved,
overwhelming evidence establishes that the claimant is disabled, and the government points to no evidence to the contrary, have we held a district court abused its discretion in failing to remand for benefits. See Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1022."
Saturday, February 6, 2016
Turning Down the Heat on the "Remand for the Payment of Benefits"
I wrote about Dominguez v. Colvin last month. The discussion focused on the intra-circuit battle over the Credit-as-True doctrine and the remand for the payment of benefits. The Ninth Circuit issued an amended opinion in Dominguez. The Court removed: