Cases — January 27th through February 2nd, 2019
Labor Unions
*National Labor Relations Board v. Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (10th Cir., January 29, 2019) (Granting the Board’s application for enforcement of 2018 decision holding the Buyers were nonmanagerial employees representable by the union)
Workers Compensation/Occupational Safety and Disease
*Deardorff v. Commissioner, SSA (10th Cir., January 29, 2019) (reversing denial of disability benefits: the ALJ failed to consider Deardorff’s migraines, and failed to discuss probative evidence conflicting with his opinion)
*Todorova v. Commissioner, SSA (10th Cir., January 31, 2019) (affirming denial of disability benefits: Todorova’s impairments were not severe)
*Vallejo v. Commissioner, SSA (10th Cir., February 1, 2019) (reversing district court award of benefits (itself reversing of Commissioner’s denial of benefits): the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards, and thedenial of benefits was supported by substantial evidence)
*The 10th Circuit has declared that these cases are not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. They may be cited, however, for persuasive value under Fed.R.App.P. 32.1 and 10th Cir.R. 32.1.
*National Labor Relations Board v. Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (10th Cir., January 29, 2019) (Granting the Board’s application for enforcement of 2018 decision holding the Buyers were nonmanagerial employees representable by the union)
Workers Compensation/Occupational Safety and Disease
*Deardorff v. Commissioner, SSA (10th Cir., January 29, 2019) (reversing denial of disability benefits: the ALJ failed to consider Deardorff’s migraines, and failed to discuss probative evidence conflicting with his opinion)
*Todorova v. Commissioner, SSA (10th Cir., January 31, 2019) (affirming denial of disability benefits: Todorova’s impairments were not severe)
*Vallejo v. Commissioner, SSA (10th Cir., February 1, 2019) (reversing district court award of benefits (itself reversing of Commissioner’s denial of benefits): the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards, and thedenial of benefits was supported by substantial evidence)
*The 10th Circuit has declared that these cases are not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. They may be cited, however, for persuasive value under Fed.R.App.P. 32.1 and 10th Cir.R. 32.1.