Mar 18 2026
9th Cir. 3:23-cv-00707- Published

Daniele Rae Powley v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of Social Security disability benefits, holding that the Administrative Law Judge failed to resolve significant inconsistencies between job-number evidence provided by a vocational expert and contrary evidence submitted by the claimant. The court clarified that when a claimant produces probative data using sources frequently relied upon by the agency, the ALJ must explicitly address and resolve the discrepancy rather than relying on general deference to the expert's experience.

Mar 17 2026
6th Cir. 23-8018 Published

In re CHAVON MARIE LANDINGHAM Debtor DOUG WOODS

The Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the lower court's denial of a creditor's claim for non-dischargeability based on willful and malicious injury but vacated and remanded several other claims due to insufficient factual findings. The panel also upheld procedural rulings regarding default judgments and recusal motions while ordering further proceedings on the debtor's counterclaims for preferential transfers and attorney's fees.

Mar 16 2026
10th Cir. 2:25-CV-02151-JWL Panel Decision

Michael A. Hudson v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Michael Hudson's claims against the Social Security Commissioner because the appellant failed to prosecute previous appeals and offered no arguments challenging the lower court's ruling. The court held it lacked jurisdiction to review prior district court decisions and found no legal basis for the requested FICA tax refunds or damages.

Mar 10 2026
3rd Cir. 25-2582 Panel Decision

FRANK NELLOM v. COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY

The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Frank Nellom's complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial review of his Social Security benefits. The court held that without a final decision from the Commissioner, the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case.