Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_00-cv-20691/USCOURTS-cand-5_00-cv-20691-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT—No. C-00-20691 RMW

SEG

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-filed on 7/31/06

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DESTA HAILE,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security

Defendant.

No. C-00-20691 RMW

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

GRANTING DEFENDANT'S CROSSMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[Re Docket Nos. 17, 18]

 Plaintiff Desta Haile brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of

the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his claim for Supplemental Security

Income ("SSI") under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Plaintiff and defendant have filed crossmotions for summary judgment. Plaintiff alleges that the findings of the administrative law judge

("ALJ") were unsupported by substantial evidence and were reached by an improper application of

the law. Specifically, plaintiff claims that the ALJ erred in its determination of plaintiff’s age.

Pursuant to this court’s procedures for review of social security actions, the parties' motions

have been submitted without oral argument. Based on the papers and the court's review of the

record, the court hereby denies plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grants defendant's

cross-motion for summary judgment.

Case 5:00-cv-20691-RMW Document 19 Filed 07/31/06 Page 1 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT—No. C-00-20691 RMW

SEG 2

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff immigrated to the United States from Ethiopia via Sudan. Court Transcript ("Tr.")

419, 1075-79. In 1982, plaintiff was admitted as a permanent resident of the United States. Tr. 601.

It is undisputed that during the residency process, plaintiff provided the Immigration and

Naturalization Service ("INS") with an approximate age that led them to estimate his birth date as

January 1, 1946. Tr. 77, 422. On March 1, 1989, plaintiff applied for SSI benefits on the basis of age

claiming that the INS birth date was in error and that he was actually born in October of 1921, 25

years earlier. Tr. 98-107. His SSI claim was denied both initially and on reconsideration. Tr. 141-

45. 

Plaintiff's case has a long procedural history, having been remanded by the Appeals Council a

total of four times, including once by stipulation before this court. Tr. 419-21. After denial of his

claim, plaintiff requested a hearing by an ALJ and first appeared before an ALJ on August 20, 1991. 

Tr. 25, 146. In a decision dated September 27, 1991, the ALJ denied plaintiff's claim for benefits. 

Tr. 151-52. The ALJ found that plaintiff had not sustained his burden of proof, that plaintiff's

testimony was neither "forthright [n]or credible," and that plaintiff's supporting evidentiary

documents were of "questionable authenticity." Tr. 154, 157. 

The Appeals Council remanded the case for further development, finding that discrepancies in

the record could only be settled by an independent verification and an evaluation of the authenticity

of each document. Tr. 203-04. However, on June 15, 1994, the ALJ decided on remand that the

totality of the evidence still did not establish plaintiff's date of birth to be in October 1921. Tr. 243-

50.

The Appeals Council remanded the case a second time under the error of law provision of the

Social Security Administration ("SSA") regulations. Tr. 254-55. The Council found that while the

ALJ had followed the Council's recommended procedure for seeking verification and authentication

of the documents, the Office of Disability and International Relations did not comply with the ALJ's

request and "simply returned the documents submitted with copies of the [discrepant] translations

which had been made previously." Id. On remand, the ALJ was to "make clear that a mere

Case 5:00-cv-20691-RMW Document 19 Filed 07/31/06 Page 2 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT—No. C-00-20691 RMW

SEG 3

translation. . . is insufficient" in determining the authenticity of plaintiff's proffered evidence. Id. 

The ALJ complied with the Council's order, and the SSA obtained verification directly from the

Ethiopian office of vital records in the city of Addis Ababa. Tr. 259-61. The Addis Ababa vital

records office deemed the documents "fraudulent," and in a decision dated March 16, 1996, the ALJ

once again denied plaintiff's claim. Tr. 256-61. 

In August of 1997, the Appeals Council remanded the case a third time, once again under the

error of law provision of the SSA regulations. Tr. 270-72. The Council stated that where the ALJ

considers additional evidence, that evidence must be proffered to the claimant, and the claimant must

be provided a supplemental hearing to rebut the evidence if his claim is denied. Id. The ALJ

complied with the Council's orders and provided plaintiff an opportunity to rebut the findings of the

Addis Ababa vital records office at a supplemental hearing. Tr. 10-22. The ALJ issued an

unfavorable decision on February 9, 1999. Id. 

When the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for further reexamination of the case,

plaintiff commenced this action for judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Tr. 502-03, 506-

07. In May 2001, this court reversed the ALJ's final decision and remanded the case to consider new

evidence from the United States Embassy's Anti-Fraud Unit which stated plaintiff's date of birth as

October 20, 1921. Tr. 506-07. Plaintiff's case was reviewed a fifth and final time by a different ALJ. 

Tr. 416-17. In a decision dated October 25, 2002, the ALJ determined that plaintiff's INS record still

remained the most reliable indication of his age offered into evidence. Tr. 416-38. The Appeals

Council found no reason to remand the case. Tr. 406.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework

To qualify for benefits under Title XVI on the basis of age, a claimant must establish that he

is at least 65 years old. 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(1)(A). The Social Security Administration has wellestablished regulations for determining an individual's date of birth. 20 C.F.R. § 416.801 et seq. The

burden is on the claimant to produce reliable evidence of his advanced age and, hence, his eligibility

for benefits. Id. § 416.801. 

Case 5:00-cv-20691-RMW Document 19 Filed 07/31/06 Page 3 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT—No. C-00-20691 RMW

SEG 4

Under SSA policy, the "highest probative value" is accorded to public or religious records of

birth or baptism established or recorded before the claimant's fifth birthday. Id. § 416.803. If birth or

baptism records are unavailable, the claimant may submit other documents as evidence of his age. Id.

§ 416.802. However, "in determining their probative value, consideration will be given to when such

documents were established or recorded and the circumstances attending their establishment or

recordation." Id. § 416.803. The ALJ may consider such factors as whether the information was

given under oath or with witnesses present, whether the information agrees with other available

evidence, and whether there was any reason to give false information when the record was created. 

Id. § 416.802; see id. § 404.708 (outlining how the SSA "decide[s] what is enough evidence" when

determining eligibility for federal old-age, survivors, and disability insurance). If the evidence

submitted is not convincing, the SSA may require the claimant to offer additional evidence in support

of his purported age. Id. § 416.805.

B. Scope of Review

The district court's scope of review is limited. Under § 405(g) of the Social Security Act, a

district court reviewing the SSA's decision on an application for benefits may affirm, reverse, or

remand. Ramirez v. Shalala, 8 F.3d 1449, 1451 (9th Cir. 1993). However, the court will not disturb

the Administration's denial of benefits unless its findings of fact are not supported by substantial

evidence or it failed to apply the proper legal standard. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Vertigan v. Halter, 260

F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001); Tacket v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097-98 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to

support a conclusion." Walker v. Mathews, 546 F.2d 814, 818 (9th Cir. 1976). Evidence is

substantial if it is more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance. Tacket, 180 F.3d at 1098.

To determine whether substantial evidence supports the SSA's findings, the court must review

the administrative record as a whole, weighing evidence that both bolsters and detracts from the

Administration's conclusion. Id. Questions of credibility and resolution of conflicts in the testimony

are functions solely for the ALJ. Allen v. Heckler, 749 F.2d 577, 579 (9th Cir. 1984). When the

evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the court must adopt the ALJ's

decision. Sandgathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978, 980 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Case 5:00-cv-20691-RMW Document 19 Filed 07/31/06 Page 4 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT—No. C-00-20691 RMW

SEG 5

Case 5:00-cv-20691-RMW Document 19 Filed 07/31/06 Page 5 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT—No. C-00-20691 RMW

SEG 6

III. ANALYSIS

The claimant seeking social security benefits bears the burden of proof regarding his age. 20

C.F.R. § 416.801. At issue in this case is whether the record contained evidence sufficient to change

plaintiff's date of birth for the purposes of Social Security. Tr. 421. Plaintiff contends that the ALJ's

decision was not supported by substantial evidence and that incorrect legal standards were employed

in the determination of his age. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that the ALJ erred in relying on the INS

birth date of January 1, 1946, because substantial evidence corroborates plaintiff's actual birth date in

October 1921. Pl.'s Mot. at 11. 

A. Plaintiff's INS Birth Date

It is undisputed that when plaintiff immigrated to the United States, he did not know his true

age or birth date. Tr. 422, 1075. Plaintiff testified that when asked for his date of birth, he "[didn't]

know [the] exact time, exact date, exact year," so he provided INS personnel with his "approximate"

age. Tr. 30, 77. The INS issued a birth date of January 1, 1946 using the approximate age, 36,

supplied by plaintiff. Tr. 422, 601.

The INS record is normally used to establish birth dates and SSI eligibility for refugees,

absent convincing foreign proof to the contrary. Tr. 437; see, e.g., Pha v. Chater, 909 F. Supp. 508

(N.D. Ohio 1995). Based on its review of evidence in the record, the ALJ determined that plaintiff's

INS birth date was "highly probative" of his age. Tr. 437. The ALJ reasoned that when plaintiff

provided INS personnel with the best estimate of his age, he was likely highly motivated to be as

accurate and honest as possible to gain residency to the United States. Id. Plaintiff now alleges that

he was actually 61 years old at the time INS personnel accepted his "approximate" age of 36. Tr.

422; Pl.'s Mot. at 12-13. As the ALJ noted, it is unlikely that plaintiff, and those who assisted

plaintiff, estimated his age with "such a wide margin of error." Tr. 437. 

Plaintiff used his INS date of birth when applying for a renewal of his driver's license, when

applying for work, when seeking medical treatment, when filing a worker's compensation claim,

when signing his daughter's birth certificate, and in many other areas of his life through the present. 

Tr. 122, 437, 522-98, 641-780. Nothing in the record indicates that plaintiff attempted to change his

date of birth between 1982, the year he immigrated to the United States, and 1988, when he began to

Case 5:00-cv-20691-RMW Document 19 Filed 07/31/06 Page 6 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Plaintiff also offered several declarations from people who have known plaintiff since childhood. 

Tr. 273-75, 279, 282-84. The ALJ in 1999 gave little evidentiary weight to the declarations because

they were offered by close friends and family of plaintiff who (1) likely had an interest in plaintiff's

success in the case and (2) were Ethiopian and thus, according to plaintiff's testimony, likely paid

little attention to age and birth dates. Tr. 18-19. Plaintiff has made no attempt to counter the 1999

decision on this issue. Tr. 422-23.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT—No. C-00-20691 RMW

SEG 7

seek eligibility for SSI benefits on the basis of age. Tr. 437, 602. Plaintiff contends that he did not

attempt to change his date of birth because he was not sure how to change it, did not have the

documentation to change it, and did not want to create any problems with his record. Pl.'s Mot. at 13. 

The ALJ found that plaintiff's failure to correct the alleged error and his use of the INS birth date for

both official and unofficial purposes were probative of his "state of mind regarding his age." Tr. 437. 

Here, where the ALJ's finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record, the court must adopt

the ALJ's reasoning. Sandgathe, 108 F.3d at 980. 

B. Plaintiff's Proffered Documentary Evidence

It is undisputed that the documents plaintiff entered into evidence to prove his date of birth

were all issued after plaintiff began to seek eligibility for SSI benefits on the basis of age in 1988. 

Tr. 424. In support of his October 1921 birth date, plaintiff initially offered three "birth certificates,"

a baptismal record, and several affidavits1

. Tr. 211-20, 423. All three birth certificates were deemed

"fraudulent" by the Ethiopian office of vital records in the city of Addis Ababa. The ALJ thus

concluded that the birth certificates were not reliable. Tr. 256, 424-25. 

The ALJ also deemed the baptismal record "suspect" and unreliable. Id. Plaintiff contends

that the baptismal records kept by the church in which he was baptized are accurate. Pl.'s Mot. at 17. 

As evidence, plaintiff offers a declaration by Mr. Daniel Nebiyeleul, a Deacon in the Ethiopian

Orthodox Church, who has allegedly visited the Gerima Monastery where plaintiff's baptismal record

is stored. Tr. 1042-43. However, the ALJ deemed the baptismal record unreliable not because of

questions concerning the authenticity of the document itself. Tr. 424-25. Rather, the ALJ gave the

document little evidentiary weight because there was no solid evidence linking the baptismal record

with the plaintiff. Id. The record did not designate the parents of the child baptized, nor did it

Case 5:00-cv-20691-RMW Document 19 Filed 07/31/06 Page 7 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 One translator of the document stated that a child is customarily baptized at the age of 40 days. 

Tr. 424-425.

3

 Where the municipal records indicated plaintiff's place of birth as Addis Ababa, the birth

certificate stated it as Adwa. Id. Plaintiff offered no explanation for this discrepancy. Tr. 427.

4

 Plaintiff testified in October 2002 that his brother, who still lives in Ethiopia, obtained the

baptismal record from the monastery and then went to the township with the baptismal record to

obtain a birth certificate. Tr. 429, 1081-82, 1085. Plaintiff testified that his brother obtained all

three birth certificates in this way. Id.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT—No. C-00-20691 RMW

SEG 8

specify a date of birth.2 Id. Furthermore, the name indicated on the record is read variously as "Hailu

Desta," "Hailu Desita," or "Desta Haile," depending on the translation. Tr. 211, 424-25. The ALJ

determined that there was no proof that this document referred to plaintiff and not to his father, who

has a very similar name, or to anyone else. Tr. 425. The ALJ also noted that the birth year stated in

the record, specifically the '21' in the year 1921, appeared to have been altered. Tr. 108, 424.

The ALJ also considered two new evidentiary documents: (1) a letter from the Embassy of

Ethiopia stating plaintiff's birth date as October 1921 and (2) a letter from the Embassy of the United

States in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia stating that the Anti-Fraud Unit ("AFU") deemed authentic one of

the three birth certificates already in the record. Tr. 426-27, 498, 500-01, 633. In the second letter,

the U.S. Vice Consul states that the AFU visited the vital statistics office in Addis Adaba and

determined that all information in the birth certificate, except place of birth3

, corresponded with the

municipality's records. Tr. 500-01. However, it is undisputed that the municipal record was created

after plaintiff entered the United States.4

 Tr. 428. The problem of authenticity and verification

therefore extends beyond the municipal record to the source documents and evidence that formed the

basis for the creation of the birth certificate. Tr. 426-27. Neither of the letters indicate the actual

documents checked or describe the location or source of the evidence relied upon in creating the

record. Id. 

 The ALJ sent a letter to the U.S. Embassy in Addis Ababa requesting more information

concerning the evidentiary basis for the records. Tr. 781-82. However, after six months passed

without response, the ALJ decided to move forward and decide the case. Tr. 428. The ALJ

determined that:

While the birth certificates may be "valid" in that they were actually created by an

Case 5:00-cv-20691-RMW Document 19 Filed 07/31/06 Page 8 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT—No. C-00-20691 RMW

SEG 9

Ethiopian governmental agency, the information in the documents was not obtained

through sound evidentiary means. Rather, the documents were created by relying on

information provided by the claimant.

Tr. 429. 

 The ALJ noted that the INS also refused plaintiff's request to change his date of birth, finding

the plaintiff's proffered documentary evidence, including the baptismal record, unreliable. Tr. 437,

601-07. In light of the vast discrepancies between and within plaintiff's proffered documents, the

timing and evidentiary basis for creation of the underlying records, and the "fraudulent" findings of

the vital statistics office of Addis Ababa, the ALJ's determination that plaintiff's documents are

unreliable and unpersuasive in establishing his age is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

C. Plaintiff's Proffered Medical Testimony 

Plaintiff also offers medical testimony in support of the October 1921 birth date. Pl.'s Mot.

16. Dr. Gary W. Steinke, a licensed physician, stated that it is "more likely" that plaintiff is older

than his INS birth date indicates. Tr. 1044. Dr. Ahmad R. Rafii, a chiropractor, opined in September

2002 that plaintiff "must be at least 75 years of age" based on plaintiff's medical records and the

results of plaintiff's physical examination. Tr. 1045. 

The ALJ did not find Dr. Steinke's opinions persuasive, noting that the doctor's opinions

lacked objective evidence beyond his own physical examination of plaintiff. Tr. 432. The ALJ also

determined that a review of plaintiff's medical records did not support Dr. Steinke's statements. Id. 

On the whole, plaintiff has received "fairly routine" medical care; recent MRIs and x-rays reveal

normal results and minimal degenerative changes commensurate with his INS birth date. Tr. 641-

780; see Tr. 783-1037 (medical records from Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, 1983-2002). The

ALJ gave little evidentiary weight to Dr. Rafii's statements as (1) he is not a licensed medical doctor;

(2) the alleged x-ray reports he relied on were not in the record; and (3) his opinions did not align

with plaintiff's medical records or with a 1999 spinal x-ray taken for plaintiff's Workers'

Compensation case, which was also considered commensurate with plaintiff's INS birth date and age. 

Tr. 434. 

The ALJ noted that neither Dr. Rafii nor the plaintiff attempted to correct plaintiff's birth date 

on his Workers' Compensation reports, despite their statements to the SSA that plaintiff was born in

Case 5:00-cv-20691-RMW Document 19 Filed 07/31/06 Page 9 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT—No. C-00-20691 RMW

SEG 10

1921. Tr. 434, 641-780. The ALJ correctly noted that Dr. Rafii was the only medical treatment lien

holder for plaintiff's Workers' Compensation claim and that the formula used to compensate plaintiff

was based on life expectancy. Tr. 435, 1048-54. If plaintiff was in fact born in 1921, he would have

been compensated for a reduced ability to earn wages from the age of 78 through the age of 108. Id.

The ALJ relied on plaintiff's medical record, specifically statements made by Dr. Arthur

Holmboe, M.D. in an October 1999 "Agreed Medical Examination" for purposes of Workers'

Compensation. Tr. 433. Dr. Holmboe noted that changes in plaintiff's x-ray were commensurate

with his age and that "the mineral content of the vertebral bodies" appeared normal. Id. "If the ALJ's

credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record, [a court] may not engage in

second-guessing." Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 959 (9th Cir. 2002). Here, the ALJ

determined that Dr. Steinke's and Dr. Rafii's statements were of little evidentiary value. The court

finds that this credibility determination was based on substantial evidence in the record. 

D. Conclusion

Here, where plaintiff's INS record is the oldest domestic evidence of his age and where the

ALJ found no convincing foreign proof of plaintiff's alleged 1921 birth date, the ALJ made a

reasoned decision to rely on the "highly probative" INS birth date for plaintiff's social security claim. 

Tr. 436. In determining what evidentiary weight to accord each of plaintiff's proffered documents,

the ALJ correctly considered the question of when the documents were established or recorded and

the circumstances of their establishment or recordation. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.803. The court is

satisfied that the ALJ analyzed each document for discrepancies, made credibility determinations,

and assessed and weighed the record as a whole in making its decision. While the ALJ noted that a

claimant born in Ethiopia would have a difficult burden of proof in changing his or her date of birth,

plaintiff's behavior since his arrival in the United States, his medical records, and his lifestyle are all

consistent with his INS birth date and age. Tr. 438. 

Case 5:00-cv-20691-RMW Document 19 Filed 07/31/06 Page 10 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT—No. C-00-20691 RMW

SEG 11

IV. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. Accordingly, the

court denies plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grants defendant's cross-motion for

summary judgment. 

DATED: 7/31/06

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:00-cv-20691-RMW Document 19 Filed 07/31/06 Page 11 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT—No. C-00-20691 RMW

SEG 12

A copy of this order was mailed to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Gayle M. Tiller 

Senior Adults Legal Assistance 

160 E. Virginia St., Suite 260 

San Jose, CA 95112 

Geoffrey W. Rawlings

Law Offices of Geoffrey W. Rawlings

586 N. 1st Street, Suite 101

San Jose, CA 95112

Counsel for Defendant:

Sara Winslow

United States Attorney's Office

Northern District of California

450 Golden Gate Ave.

10th Floor, Box 36055

San Francisco, CA 94102

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this order to co-counsel, as necessary.

Date: 7/31/06 SPT

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:00-cv-20691-RMW Document 19 Filed 07/31/06 Page 12 of 12