Barbara Lumpkin v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 2:2008cv07451 - Document 21 (C.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky. (ib)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BARBARA LUMPKIN, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 vs. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. CV 08-07451 (RZ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 17 Although Plaintiff originally asserted that she was proceeding on an 18 application for Supplemental Security Income, she since has conceded, in supplemental 19 briefing requested by the Court, that her application concerns only a request for disability 20 benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. The Administrative Law Judge found 21 that Plaintiff s Social Security insurance coverage ended in 1999, and Plaintiff does not 22 dispute that finding in this Court. The Administrative Law Judge denied the application, 23 finding no evidence of an impairment during the period of coverage. 24 The decision of the Administrative Law Judge (the Commissioner s delegate) 25 is to be upheld if backed by substantial evidence and conforming to the correct legal 26 standard. Drouin v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff points to no 27 evidence that she was disabled before insurance coverage expired. Plaintiff identifies one 28 2006 doctor s report, indicating degenerative disc disease and degeneration of the facet 1 joints in certain parts of the spine [AR 206] and another 2006 doctor s report indicating a 2 tear in her knee cartilage and degeneration of the knee [AR 204)], but there is no indication 3 in either report that these situations even existed seven years earlier, when insurance 4 coverage expired. As the Court noted in Flaten v. Secretary of Health and Human 5 Services, 44 F.3d 1453, 1458 (9th Cir. 1995), individuals who apply for benefits under the 6 Act after the expiration of their insured status, for a disability that prevents substantial 7 gainful activity at the time of the application, must show that the current disability has 8 existed continuously since some time on or before the date that their insured status lapsed. 9 Plaintiff has not satisfied this requirement. 10 Plaintiff s arguments about the treating physician s findings, her own 11 credibility, and potential side effects from medication, do not address the fundamental 12 problem Plaintiff faces that there is no evidence of a disability before Social Security 13 coverage expired, and therefore, even assuming a current disability, no link between the 14 current situation and the situation existing prior to the expiration of coverage. 15 Accordingly, the decision of the Administrative Law Judge must be affirmed. 16 17 DATED: July 30, 2009 18 19 20 RALPH ZAREFSKY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-
]]>
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.
