Case ID: f-appx_635/html/0380-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Frank Salmeron WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Commissioner Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-17302.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
    
    Filed March 3, 2016.
    Frank Salmerón Walker, Palo Alto, CA, pro se.
    Elizabeth Firer, Special Assistant U.S., Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee,
    Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Frank Salmerón Walker appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision denying his request that the Social Security Administration waive recovery of overpaid disability insurance benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Anderson v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1121, 1122 (9th Cir.1990), and we affirm.

The ALJ applied the proper legal standard and substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that Walker was “not without fault” and therefore did not qualify for a waiver of recovery for overpayment. 42 U.S.C. § 404(b); see also McCarthy v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1119, 1126 (9th Cir.2000) (discussing “without fault” in the context of a waiver of recovery for overpayment of disability insurance benefits); Anderson, 914 F.2d at 1122 (the ALJ’s “refusal to waive repayment should be affirmed if supported by substantial evidence and if the [ALJ] applied the proper legal standard”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.