Partial Remands and Finality: Fallon v. Dudek

Fallon v. Dudek (April 24, 2025) offers a critical lesson in timing, appellate strategy, and how courts treat previously decided issues after a remand. If you’re handling a Social Security appeal—or any case involving partial remands—this decision is worth your attention.

Background: What Happened in Fallon v. Dudek?

The Claim

Fallon applied for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) based on cognitive and behavioral impairments following childhood epilepsy surgery. Her case was supported by:

• Neurologist Dr. Drazkowski (moderate-to-severe cognitive limitations)

• Licensed Professional Counselor Galler (diagnosed PTSD and developmental delays)

• Testimony from Fallon, her family, and additional medical professionals

  
  

First ALJ Denial

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) discredited key medical evidence and denied Fallon’s claim.

First District Court Review

The district court found that:

• The ALJ properly rejected the opinions of Dr. Drazkowski and LPC Galler

• The ALJ improperly discounted other evidence

  
  

Result: A partial remand for further review—not a full reversal.

The Appeal to the Ninth Circuit (First Time Around)

Fallon appealed, arguing the district court should have outright awarded benefits rather than remanding.Citation: Fallon v. Kijakazi, No. 20-16884, 2021 WL 5906143 (9th Cir. Dec. 14, 2021) (unpublished).

What Happened After Remand?

ALJ Denial

On remand, the ALJ:

• Conducted the limited inquiries required by the district court

• Adopted prior findings—including the discredited opinions of Dr. Drazkowski and LPC Galler—without new evaluation

• 
  

District Court Review

Fallon asked the district court to reconsider those medical opinions. The court refused, citing the law-of-the-case doctrine.

Rationale: Those issues were “settled” in the first round of review.

Ninth Circuit Decision: Law-of-the-Case Applies

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding:

• The law-of-the-case doctrine prevents relitigating issues already decided unless they were timely appealed

• Even in Social Security disability cases, this principle applies

• 
  

Standard of Review: Abuse of discretion (a very high bar to overcome)

Q&A: Key Questions Raised

Q: Can you challenge issues that were affirmed in a partial remand if you didn’t appeal them immediately?

A: According to the Ninth Circuit, no. Once an issue is decided and not appealed, it's locked in by the law-of-the-case doctrine.

Q: What does SSA policy say about remands?

A: SSA’s own manual—HALLEX I-2-8-18, now HA 01280.018—states:

“If the Appeals Council remands a case to the hearing level after a court remand, it generally vacates the entire administrative law judge (ALJ) decision, and the ALJ must consider all pertinent issues de novo.”

That means all issues must be reconsidered—not just the ones explicitly mentioned by the court.

Why the Ninth Circuit May Have Gotten It Wrong

• SSA policy directs ALJs to conduct de novo reviews on remand—even if the remand order doesn't discuss every issue.

• Disability determinations are holistic. Every part of the prior record—from medical opinions to symptom credibility—shapes the outcome.

• By allowing incorporation of “undisturbed” findings, the Ninth Circuit’s approach conflicts with SSA’s stated policy and undermines a full, fair reassessment.

  
  

Practice Tip for Practitioners

When a court issues a partial remand:

• Option 1: Appeal immediately and raise every issue you want preserved

• Option 2: Proceed with the remand and risk the court treating prior rulings as final

  
  

If you proceed, argue the following before the ALJ:

“Under SSA policy (HA 01280.018), a court remand requires de novo review. It is improper to incorporate prior findings without new evaluation—especially when no medical consultant has reviewed the updated record.”

What This Case Means for You

• The Ninth Circuit held that affirmed issues in a partial remand can't be reargued unless timely appealed.

• This may contradict SSA’s own policy, which treats post-remand hearings as de novo.

• Strategic takeaway: Challenge every unfavorable aspect immediately—or risk losing your shot.

Got any questions? Schedule a consultation with us. I’m here to help. It’s a lot to take in, but we’ll get through it together. After all, navigating these waters is always easier when you’ve got someone to chat with.