Melkonian v. Astrue, 030411 FED9, 09-55789

Docket Nº:09-55789
Party Name:CONSTANCE V. MELKONIAN, disabled child/adult, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:March 04, 2011
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

CONSTANCE V. MELKONIAN, disabled child/adult, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-55789

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

March 4, 2011

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted February 15, 2011[**]

Appeal from the United States District Court No. 3:06-cv-02081-JLS-BLM for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Constance V. Melkonian appeals pro se from the district court's judgment in her action challenging the Social Security Commissioner's decision to terminate her supplemental security income ("SSI") benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Lewis v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2007) (order upholding the Commissioner's denial of benefits); Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (dismissal for failure to state a claim); Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly determined that substantial evidence supported the Commissioner's decision that Melkonian was no longer eligible for SSI benefits under child or adult disability standards because her conditions had medically improved and did not prevent her from working. See Warre v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming decision to terminate child's SSI benefits because substantial evidence supported that child was no longer "disabled" due to medical improvement); Matthews v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 678, 680 (9th Cir. 1993) (claimant's ability to attend school supported that his impairments did not prevent him from performing all work).

The district court properly dismissed Melkonian's remaining claims for lack of subject matter...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP