Clifford Allen Kellems v. Michael J Astrue, No. 5:2010cv00304 - Document 18 (C.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky. (See document for details). (ib)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Clifford Allen Kellems v. Michael J Astrue Doc. 18 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLIFFORD ALLEN KELLEMS, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. ED CV 10-00304 RZ MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 17 Plaintiff challenges the Administrative Law Judge’s determination that his 18 drug abuse was a material factor contributing to his disabling condition. He argues both 19 that the evidence does not support this conclusion, and that the Administrative Law Judge 20 committed reversible error in assessing Plaintiff’s credibility and that of his mother. The 21 Court disagrees. 22 The record contained evidence of Plaintiff’s drug use, and the treating 23 physician’s opinion that Plaintiff’s capacity was affected by his use, on and off, of 24 prohibited drugs. Plaintiff’s argument before the Court, over whether Plaintiff used drugs 25 continuously or simply “on and off,” does not present a basis for invalidating the decision. 26 It is a reasonable interpretation of the evidence that even “on and off” drug usage can be 27 a material factor to disability. It does not matter whether a different interpretation might 28 be placed on the evidence; the interpretation was the Administrative law Judge’s to make. Dockets.Justia.com 1 Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F. 3d 853, 857(9th Cir. 2001). The burden rested on Plaintiff 2 to demonstrate that his drug usage was not a contributing factor material to his incapacity, 3 Brown v. Apfel, 192 F.3d 492, 498 (9th Cir. 1999), and Plaintiff failed to sustain that 4 burden. Moreover, the use of drugs, especially contrasted with professions of non-use, 5 surely is a legitimate basis upon which to disbelieve Plaintiff. An Administrative Law 6 Judge is entitled to use normal techniques of evaluating a witness when making his 7 credibility determination. Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 604 n.5 (1989), and certainly one 8 proper basis for discrediting testimony is that it is inconsistent with prior statements. 9 Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc ). 10 The Administrative Law Judge’s discrediting of Plaintiff’s mother’s statement 11 was problematic. However, Valentine v. Commissioner of Social Security, 574 F.3d 685, 12 694 (9th Cir. 2009), provides that the statement is as discredited as that of the claimant, 13 since it relies on the same complaints which have otherwise been discredited. Accordingly, 14 the Court concludes that it was appropriate to not fully credit the mother’s statement either. 15 There being no basis for reversal, the decision of the Commissioner is 16 affirmed. 17 18 DATED: December 6, 2010 19 20 21 22 RALPH ZAREFSKY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
