Court Opinion

ID: 9817271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 04:11:44.536395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:31:54.035603
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
Because I believe the district court erred in failing to conduct a full de novo review of the final administrative law judge (“ALJ”) decision, I respectfully dissent.
Judicial review of a Social Security decision is “necessarily limited to the final decision of the [Commissioner].” See Flaten v. Health and Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir.1995) (emphasis added). Here, the district court remanded the case to the Commissioner for the purpose of more fully developing the evidentiary record. On remand, the ALJ admitted new evidence into the record and issued an entirely new decision. Under these circumstances, the district court was required to review the ALJ’s final decision. See id. Because the district court relied on the earlier hearing and did not conduct a full de novo review of the ALJ’s final decision, I would remand the case to the district court.