Ball v. Massanari

254 F.3d 817 (9th Cir, 2001) ; Clearinghouse Number: 53878

Description

Ban on Social Security Disability Benefits for Alcoholism-Related Disability Applies to Applications Pending on Prohibition’s Effective Date

Abstract

The Ninth Circuit held that 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(C), a Social Security Act amendment prohibiting disability benefit applicants from being considered disabled if alcoholism or drug addiction would be a contributing factor material to the disability determination, applied to applications pending on the amendment’s effective date. Plaintiff-appellant claimant, an alcoholic, was injured on the job and stopped working in 1987. His 1994 social security disability (Title II) benefits application, based on claims of disability because of alcoholism and reduced bone mass, was denied because he could not establish disability before 1992, his “date last insured” for Title II benefits. Claimant appealed. While his case was pending, Congress passed the Contract with America Advancement Act, which included the amendment. The administrative law judge determined that claimant had a severe impairment precluding his ability to perform past relevant work but concluded that he could perform a full range of light work. Acknowledging that claimant’s alcoholism was disabling, the judge concluded that the amendment prevented him from ordering an allowance. The district court affirmed. On appeal, claimant asserted that, because he became disabled in 1987 and his insured status continued until 1992, his entitlement was “vested”; thus applying the amendment to his case was impermissibly retroactive. The Ninth Circuit, noting that the amendment’s effective date provision applied to claims not finally adjudicated by the enactment date, found that the law by its plain language applied to this claim because it was pending when Congress enacted the amendment and Congress intended to permit retroactive application. Affirming the district court, the Ninth Circuit also held that an administrative law judge must conduct a “differentiating” analysis to separate alcoholism and drug-related impairments from unrelated physical impairments only if the record indicated that the non-substance-abuse-related impairments were “severe.”

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Docket Date
2001-06-15 00:00:00+00:00

Files

Filed under: