From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brackenbury v. Astrue

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 13, 2008
No. 06-35283 (9th Cir. Aug. 13, 2008)

Opinion

No. 06-35283.

August 13, 2008.

D.C. No. CV-05-00155-MO District of Oregon, Portland.

Before: RYMER, T.G. NELSON, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.


ORDER AMENDING MEMORANDUM AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING


The memorandum disposition filed February 27, 2008, is amended as follows:

Page 4, delete footnote 1.

Page 5, following first full paragraph and preceding second full paragraph, insert new paragraph to read "However, the ALJ did not address whether fine motor limitations reflected in the Blankenship evaluation affect the analysis. For this reason only, we remand so that the effect, if any, may be considered."

Page 5, the mandate line should be amended to read: "AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED IN PART."

With the above amendments, the panel has voted to deny appellant's petition for rehearing. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing will be entertained.


Summaries of

Brackenbury v. Astrue

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 13, 2008
No. 06-35283 (9th Cir. Aug. 13, 2008)
Case details for

Brackenbury v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:ALFRED BRACKENBURY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 13, 2008

Citations

No. 06-35283 (9th Cir. Aug. 13, 2008)