Opinion ID: 722162
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Review of the CA's Denial of Benefits

Text: 14 Jelinek alleges for the first time on appeal that the district court erred in reviewing the CA's denial of her claim for an abuse of discretion. Jelinek argues that the CA's decision should have been reviewed de novo by the district court. 15 It is well-settled that claims may not be raised for the first time on appeal. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120-21 (1976) (holding that a federal appellate court should not consider an issue not passed on below unless injustice might otherwise result); United States v. Oregon, 769 F.2d 1410, 1414 (9th Cir.1985). Because Jelinek failed to raise the issue of de novo review at the district court level, we may not address this issue on appeal. 1 16 Jelinek contends that despite her failure to raise this claim below, we should nonetheless address it on appeal because the case on which she relies, Atwood v. Newmont Gold Co., 45 F.3d 1317 (9th Cir.1995), announced a new rule of law and was handed down subsequent to final briefing at the district court level. However, the decision in Atwood did not announce a new rule of law, and does not provide support for de novo review of the CA's decision in the present case. Therefore, the district court did not err in reviewing the CA's decision for an abuse of discretion.