Beaty v. Berryhill
| Decision Date | 13 May 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:18-cv-00519 AC,2:18-cv-00519 AC |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | SUSAN BEATY, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. |
Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") reducing the monthly Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") benefits she receives under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (the "Act"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1383f.1 For the reasons that follow, the court will grant plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and deny the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment.
////
////
Plaintiff applied for SSI on June 25, 2012 and was found to be disabled and qualifying for benefits beginning June 2012.2 Administrative Record ("AR") 132.3 However, on March 6, 2014, plaintiff was informed that the Social Security Administration ("SSA") would reduce her monthly benefits payments based on new information regarding the status of her relationship with David Dorney. AR 87. Plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration, which was denied on April 17, 2014. AR 76, 79-81. Plaintiff then requested an administrative hearing (AR 73) which took place on November 16, 2015. AR 155-179 (transcript). Plaintiff, who waived her right to a representative, and Dorney offered testimony at the hearing. AR 19, 31, 155-179.
On March 2, 2016, ALJ Robert C. Tronvig, Jr. issued an unfavorable decision, finding plaintiff was in a "holding out" couple relationship with Dorney from the point of discovery in March 2014 and continuing, and that due to a "holding out" couple relationship, Dorney's income and resources were rightfully included in the determination of the claimant's income and resources as of that date and continuing. AR 19-25 (decision). On January 9, 2018, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review, leaving the ALJ's decision as the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. AR 3-5 (decision).
Plaintiff filed this action on March 9, 2018. ECF No. 1; see 42 U.S.C. §§ 205(g), 1383(c)(3). The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. ECF Nos. 8, 9. The parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, based upon the Administrative Record filed by the Commissioner, have been fully briefed. ECF Nos. 14 (), 15 (Commissioner's summary judgment motion), 16 (plaintiff's reply).
The Commissioner's decision will be upheld if it was (1) supported by substantial evidence and (2) based on proper legal standards. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2005). "Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla but lessthan a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Bray v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1222 (9th Cir. 2009). Although this court cannot substitute its discretion for that of the Commissioner, the court nonetheless must review the record as a whole, "weighing both the evidence that supports and the evidence that detracts from the [Commissioner's] conclusion." Desrosiers v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 846 F.2d 573, 576 (9th Cir. 1988); Jones v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 1985) ().
SSI is a needs-based benefit program. As such, in making a benefits determination, the Commissioner considers an applicant's income and resources, along with those of a married applicant's spouse. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1802 (). Under the Social Security Act, an applicant may be "deemed" married for purposes of SSI, irrespective of her marital status under state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(d)(2). For purposes of determining SSI benefits, "if a man and woman are found to be holding themselves out to the community in which they reside as husband and wife, they shall be so considered[.]"4 Id. The implementing regulations provide further guidance on when SSA will consider someone to be an applicant's spouse:
We will consider someone to be your spouse (and therefore consider you to be married) for SSI purposes if . . . [y]ou and an unrelated person of the opposite sex are living together in the same household at or after the time you apply for SSI benefits, and you both lead people to believe that you are husband and wife.
. . . . If you tell us you are married we will consider you married unless we have information to the contrary. We will also consider you married, on the basis ofyour statement, if you say you are living with an unrelated person of the opposite sex and you both lead people to believe you are married.
Generally, proof of marital status is unnecessary, unless an applicant "live[s] with an unrelated person of the opposite sex." 20 C.F.R. § 416.1826(a), (c); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.1821(a). Section 416.1826 provides, in relevant part:
20 C.F.R. § 416.1826.
In reaching his determination that plaintiff should be considered married to Dorney, the ALJ discussed the following facts. Plaintiff and Dorney lived together "as a financial unit" for many years and have two children together. AR 22. For the better part of 25 years, plaintiff did not work outside the home but raised the children while Dorney worked and supported the family. Id. They moved "as a family unit" to several locations over the years. Id. When plaintiff's disability was established in June 2012, Dorney was living with her and was assisting herpersonally and financially in running their household. Id. "They have shared a bank account together and vehicles." Id. In a March 6, 2014 Redetermination Summary for Determining Continuing Eligibility for SSI Payments, plaintiff acknowledged that she was living with Dorney and that they present themselves to others as husband and wife. AR 23. In her request for reconsideration, she disagreed with the "holding out" determination, however, stating that Dorney was her caretaker and not her spouse; they were both single adults not in a romantic relationship; and they did not hold each other out as spouses. Id. Plaintiff and Dorney's October 2015 Marital Relationship Questionnaires reported that they refer to themselves by their own names, and to each other as "friends"; and that mail is addressed to them by their individual names and no bills show them as husband and wife. AR 23, 24. The ALJ noted Dorney's statement on the questionnaire that "until he is sure that the claimant has the independence and assistance that she requires, can he, in good conscience, pursue his life further." AR 23. The ALJ likewise noted plaintiff's statement on the questionnaire that Dorney AR 24. Plaintiff testified at the hearing that she had lived continuously with Dorney and they had vehicles registered together. Id. Dorney testified at the hearing that he and plaintiff see themselves as individuals and are not in a romantic relationship; and that they changed the ownership of their bank account in November 2014 when they were told it could look bad for plaintiff. Id.
In conclusion, the ALJ reasoned:
Clearly, the claimant and Dorney have lived together continuously since 1990 as a couple and established a communal immediate family unit with the birth of their two children in 1991 and 1994. As stated above, the claimant has worked very little during her years together with Dorney, whereas, Dorney's earnings record shows continuous earnings annually since 1980 . . . that were used to maintain their household. Although they both speak of an agreement as to their living arrangement that was entered into with a specified end date of May 2011, it was an oral agreement and there is no written confirmation as to the parameters if any of their relationship. Their statements attest to their dedication and commitment to each other as life partners in a couple situation, which has not been terminated.
AR 24-25. The ALJ thus found that plaintiff had been in a "holding out" couple relationship since March 2014. AR 25.
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in finding spousal deeming proper, contending that: (1) the ALJ applied the wrong legal standard in making this determination, and (2) under the proper standard, there was insufficient evidence that plaintiff and Dorney were holding themselves out as married. ECF No. 14 at 7-11. Plaintiff requests that the court reverse the Commissioner's decision and remand with instructions to restore...
To continue reading
Request your trial