RICHARD SUTTON V. NANCY BERRYHILL, No. 15-35722 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 13 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICHARD TRUMAN SUTTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 15-35722 D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01734-JPD v. MEMORANDUM* NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington James P. Donohue II, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted February 9, 2017** Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. Richard Sutton appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision that he had been overpaid disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and was not entitled to a waiver of overpayment. Sutton * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). concedes that his DIB was properly offset by a state workers’ compensation benefit for the period from January through April 2011 but challenges an offset for the period from January through November 2010. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Commissioner “bears the burden of proving the fact and amount of overpayment.” McCarthy v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1119, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000). We review the Commissioner’s determination for substantial evidence. Id. at 1125. We reverse and remand. Sutton’s lump-sum Washington state permanent partial disability award was not a periodic benefit subject to offset. See 42 U.S.C. § 424a(a) (an individual’s DIB must be offset by any “periodic benefits on account of his or her total or partial disability (whether or not permanent) under a workmen’s compensation law or plan of the United States or a State” if the total of the two benefits exceeds a certain amount); see also id. § 424a(b) (a lump-sum benefit is excluded from this requirement “except to the extent that it is a commutation of, or a substitute for, period payments”). This court has held that where state law provided that a lumpsum award was intended to compensate for the economic loss of earning capacity, the award was a periodic benefit subject to offset. Hodge v. Shalala, 27 F.3d 430, 432-33 (9th Cir 1994). Under Washington law, however, an award of workers’ compensation benefits for permanent partial disability is not wage compensation 2 intended to cover a claimant’s lost earning capacity. See Willoughby v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus. of the State of Wash., 57 P.3d 611, 616-17 (Wash. 2002); McIndoe v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 26 P.3d 903, 908 (Wash. 2001). We therefore reverse the district court’s judgment and remand with instructions to remand to the Commissioner for a recalculation and refund of any offset against Sutton’s DIB. REVERSED and REMANDED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
