Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-02465/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-02465-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Frances Lundberg, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Carolyn W. Colvin, 

Defendant.

No. CV-13-02465-TUC-RCC

ORDER 

 Before the Court is (Doc. 24) Plaintiff’s Response (Objections) to the Magistrate 

Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 23). Pursuant to LR Civ. 72.2(a) 

and F.R.Civ. P. Rule 72, and after conducting a de novo review, the Court accepts the 

Magistrate Judge’s R&R in its entirety. 

 For the purposes of laying out the factual and procedural history in this case, the 

Court hereby incorporates the full R&R. 

 Analysis 

 The heart of the issue before the ALJ, the Magistrate, and this Court is whether 

Plaintiff was provided misinformation by the Tucson SSA office such that she may 

recover pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.633. 

 Plaintiff avers that during her September 2005 appointment for Medicare and 

retirement benefits, she did not ask the specific question of whether she could draw on 

her ex-husbands account while allowing her account to grow. (Doc. 26 at p.2). 

Nevertheless, she argues that she provided the representative with sufficient information 

(that she knew she could draw on her ex-husband’s account as well as her own and that 

Case 4:13-cv-02465-RCC-BPV Document 28 Filed 02/20/15 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

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 

she wanted the largest benefit possible) such that the representative should have informed 

her that she could draw on her ex-spouse’s account when she reached full retirement age 

in April 2006 and continue to let her account grow until she reached the age of 70. Id.

 Upon review of this record, this Court agrees with the ALJ and the Magistrate 

Judge that there is no evidence that the representative Plaintiff was provided with 

misinformation in response to any specific request in September 2005. By her own 

admission, Plaintiff did not directly ask the representative if she could draw on her exhusband’s account while letting hers grow—Plaintiff only claims she asked which benefit 

would be larger. Id. The representative correctly answered that they would be about the 

same amount and that she could draw on either account. Id. at p. 2, p. 5. 

 The Court sympathizes with Plaintiff and further agrees with the Magistrate Judge 

that “Looking at the record as a whole, considering both evidence that supports and 

undermines the ALJ’s findings, it is clear that the evidence may be susceptible of more 

than one rational interpretation, but in that case, the decision of the Commissioner, 

acting through the ALJ, must be upheld.” (Doc. 23 at p. 7-8) (Emphasis added). Citing 

Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720-21 (9th Cir. 1998); Orteza v. Shalala, 50 F.3d 748, 

749 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED affirming the decision of the Commissioner, 

accepting (Doc. 23), and dismissing this case; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking (Doc. 27) as contrary to (Doc. 23); 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter Judgment in favor 

of Defendant and close this case. 

 Dated this 20th day of February, 2015. 

Case 4:13-cv-02465-RCC-BPV Document 28 Filed 02/20/15 Page 2 of 2