Mitchell v. Apfel, 3:97CV330-P.

• Decision Date: 06 August 1998
• Docket Number: No. 3:97CV330-P.,3:97CV330-P.
• Citation: 19 F.Supp.2d 523
• Parties: Terry M. MITCHELL, Plaintiff, v. Kenneth S. APFEL,<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina

Page 523

19 F.Supp.2d 523

Terry M. MITCHELL, Plaintiff, v. Kenneth S. APFEL,¹ Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

No. 3:97CV330-P.

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division.

August 6, 1998.

Henry B. Wansker, Rockingham, NC, for Plaintiff.

Joseph Brinkley, Charlotte, NC, for Defendant.

ORDER

ROBERT D. POTTER, Senior District Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on a Memorandum and Recommendation ("M & R") of Chief United States Magistrate Judge Carl Horn, entered on 18 June 1998. Plaintiff filed an objection and the Government responded.

The Court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of the report or proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1) (West 1993). The Court has reviewed the pertinent legal authorities and the objections made. After conducting this review, the Court finds that the record supports the Magistrate's findings of fact and conclusions of law.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the M & R be, and hereby is, AFFIRMED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY.

The Court will file a corresponding judgment dismissing this matter with prejudice.

HORN, Chief United States Magistrate Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff's "Motion For Summary Judgment" (document # 13) and "Brief in Support..." (document # 14), both filed March 26, 1998, and Defendant's "Motion For Summary Judgment"(document # 17) and "Memorandum in Support of the Commissioner's Decision" (document # 18), both filed June 15, 1998. This matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and is now ripe for the Court's consideration.

Having considered the written arguments, administrative record, and applicable authority, the undersigned will respectfully recommend that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be denied; that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted; and that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 2, 1995, the Plaintiff filed applications for 1) a period of disability and disability insurance (DI) benefits and 2) supplemental security income (SSI), respectively, alleging disability since January 14, 1994 based primarily on alcoholism. (Tr. 64-67;79-81.)² These applications were denied initially and on reconsideration, (Tr. 68-73; 76-78; 82-85), and Plaintiff subsequently requested a hearing. On May 16, 1996, a hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge (the "ALJ"), who denied each of Plaintiff's applications in a decision dated May 31, 1996. (Tr. 11-16.) The Appeals Council thereafter denied the Plaintiff's request for review and affirmed the ALJ's decision, making this the final decision of the Commissioner. (Tr. 3-4; 5-7.) See 20 C.F.R. § 404.955 and 404.981 (1997). Thus, the Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing this action on June 5, 1997, and the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment are now ripe for review.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The material facts in this action are not in dispute, as Plaintiff has conceded that the "findings of fact of the Commissioner of Social Security are supported by substantial evidence and are conclusive." The sole issue before the Court is a question of law, the resolution of which warrants only a brief recitation of the underlying facts.

As found by the ALJ, the Plaintiff, a "younger individual" with a high school education, has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since January 14, 1994, his alleged date of onset of disability. Plaintiff claims disability from that date based solely on his "long history of chronic alcohol abuse, hospitalizations, detoxification, and relapse;" the fact that he is a "severe alcoholic who drinks alcohol constantly;" and that his condition is a both "medically determinable" and "severe" impairment which "affects his ability to be gainfully employed" under the applicable regulations. (Tr. 13-15.) The ALJ specifically noted that "but for the application of Section 105 of Public Law 104-121," Plaintiff's condition "would be `disabling' under the Social Security Act." (Tr. 14-15.)

On March 29, 1996, prior to the final adjudication of Plaintiff's claim by the Commissioner, Congress passed the "Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996," Pub.L. No.104-121. The pertinent portion of that Act, § 105, amends the Social Security Act by adding the following language to the definition of "disability":

(C) An individual shall not be considered to be disabled for purposes of this subchapter if alcoholism or drug addiction would (but for this subparagraph) be a contributing factor material to the Commissioner's determination that the individual is disabled.

42 U.S.C.A. § 423(d)(2)(C) (1997). Plaintiff in this action challenges the constitutionality of this statutory amendment and its attendant regulations, which provide the sole basis for the Commissioner's finding that Plaintiff was "not disabled" for Social Security purposes.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and § 1383(c)(3), limits this Court's review of a final decision of the Commissioner to: (1) whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's decision, Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971); and (2) whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards. Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir.1990); see also Hunter v. Sullivan, 993 F.2d 31, 34 (4th Cir.1992) (per curiam). The district court does not ordinarily review a final decision of the Commissioner de novo. Smith v. Schweiker, 795 F.2d 343, 345 (4th Cir.1986); King v. Califano, 599 F.2d 597, 599 (4th Cir.1979); Blalock v. Richardson, 483 F.2d 773, 775 (4th Cir.1972).

The Plaintiff in this action, however, has conceded that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's decision, and instead he presents a straightforward question of law, namely: whether 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(C), as amended, violates the Equal Protection or Due Process provisions of the United States Constitution. These legal issues are subject to de novo review by this Court.

Nonetheless, the Court's standard of review regarding the constitutionality of Congress' allocation of Social Security benefits has been described as "deferential" in light of the inherent difficulty in making "many distinctions among classes of beneficiaries while making allocations from a finite fund." Bowen v. Owens, 476 U.S. 340, 345, 106 S.Ct. 1881, 90 L.Ed.2d 316 (1986). The discretion to make such allocations of benefits "`belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, [and] not an exercise of judgment.'" Id., citing Mathews v. De Castro, 429 U.S. 181, 185, 97 S.Ct. 431, 50 L.Ed.2d 389 (1976), and Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 640, 57 S.Ct. 904, 81 L.Ed. 1307 (1937). As the Court held in Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 611, 80 S.Ct. 1367, 4 L.Ed.2d 1435 (1960):

Particularly when we deal with a withholding of a noncontractual benefit under a social welfare program such as [Social Security], we must recognize that the Due Process Clause can be thought to interpose a bar only if the statute manifests a patently arbitrary classification, utterly lacking in rational justification.

Thus, the Court has granted a "strong presumption of constitutionality" to "legislation conferring monetary benefits." Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221, 238, 101 S.Ct. 1074, 67 L.Ed.2d 186 (1981), citing Mathews, 429 U.S. at 185, 97 S.Ct. 431.

Plaintiff contends that the statute in question should be subjected to some higher form of scrutiny, and towards that end argues that it deprives him of a fundamental right (his entitlement to benefits) or makes distinctions based on a "quasi-suspect classification" (whether the applicant is an alcoholic or drug abuser). However, each of the Plaintiff's contentions in this regard is foreclosed by clear precedent and common sense.

In Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 95 S.Ct. 2457, 45 L.Ed.2d 522 (1975), the Court considered a claimant's equal protection challenge to a provision of the Social Security Act providing that widows and stepchildren would not be eligible for survivors' benefits if the widow had been married to the decedent less than nine months prior to his death. In applying the rational basis test to this classification, the Court stated specifically that "a noncontractual claim to receive funds from the public treasury enjoys no constitutionally protected status... though of course Congress may not invidiously discriminate among such claimants on the basis of a `bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group'..., or on the basis of criteria which bear no rational relation to a legitimate legislative goal." 422 U.S. at 772, 95 S.Ct. 2457. See also United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 174, 101 S.Ct. 453, 66 L.Ed.2d 368 (1980) (stating that "social security benefits... are not contractual and may be altered or even eliminated at any time" and applying rational basis test to classification of railroad retirement benefits recipients based on length of service) Cf. Lavine v. Milne, 424 U.S. 577, 585 n. 9, 96 S.Ct. 1010, 47 L.Ed.2d 249 (1976) (holding that "[w]elfare benefits are not a fundamental right").

Neither are alcoholics or substance abusers properly considered a "suspect" or "quasi-suspect" class for equal protection purposes. The only criteria considered "suspect" and thus subject to strict scrutiny³ are race, alienage, and national origin. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 216, 65 S.Ct. 193, 89 L.Ed. 194 (1944)(race/national origin); Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 376, 91 S.Ct. 1848, 29 L.Ed.2d 534, (1971) (alienage). Gender and illegitimacy have been deemed "quasi-suspect" classifications, and statutes which classify or discriminate on the basis thereof are subjected to "intermediate scrutiny," meaning that they must...