Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02197/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02197-3/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)

---

1

Case No.: 5:14-cv-02197-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; GRANTING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ENEX A. CLARK,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:14-cv-02197-EJD 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT; GRANTING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 18, 20

Presently before the court are cross-motions for summary judgment addressing the 

calculation of Plaintiff Enex A. Clark’s (“Plaintiff”) Social Security Disability Insurance benefits

(“SSDI”), as provided in a final decision issued by the Commissioner of Social Security (the 

“Commissioner”). Dkt. Nos. 18, 20. This court reviews the Commissioner’s decision pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

Having now carefully considered the relevant documents submitted by both parties in 

conjunction with the record, the court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and

grant the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

On November 21, 2008, Plaintiff filed an application for SSDI. Administrative Transcript 

(“Tr.”) at 11. The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) rejected the application, and Plaintiff 

requested a hearing and appeared before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). Tr. at 113-122. 

At the hearing, ALJ T. Patrick Hannon found a “sufficient quantum of evidence” that Plaintiff was

“less than sedentary” - effectively finding Plaintiff disabled and entitled to benefits. Id. 

Case 5:14-cv-02197-EJD Document 22 Filed 03/25/16 Page 1 of 6
2

Case No.: 5:14-cv-02197-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; GRANTING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiff ultimately disagreed with the amount of benefits calculated by the SSA and filed a 

request for hearing on March 28, 2012. Tr. at 34. Another ALJ, Rowena E. Deloach, rendered an 

unfavorable decision on September 12, 2012. Tr. at 8-10. On April 25, 2014, the Appeals 

Council denied a request for review, and the ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the SSA. 

Tr. at 3-5. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action requesting judicial review of the Administration’s decision 

on May 13, 2014. Compl., Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on September 17, 

2015. Dkt. No. 18. The Commissioner filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on October 

19, 2015. Dkt. No. 20.

B. Factual Background

After Plaintiff was determined disabled by the ALJ in November, 2008, she was scheduled 

to receive periodic benefits beginning in May 2009.1 Tr. at 60. However, her benefits were 

delayed, and the SSA sent Plaintiff a series of notices regarding benefit amounts and lump sum 

payments of back-benefits. Tr. at 60-87. In one of these notices, the SSA informed Plaintiff that 

her benefits were reduced by an offset of disability benefits she received from the State of 

California. Tr. at 60A. The SSA explained that the sum total of Social Security and public 

disability benefits cannot exceed 80% of Plaintiff’s monthly average current earnings. Id. In 

Plaintiff’s case, 80% of her average current earnings amounted to $1,320.80. Id. Since her state

public disability benefit was $793.00, the SSA reduced Plaintiff’s Social Security benefits by that 

amount, resulting in monthly payments of $527.80.2 Tr. at 60A; Tr. at 79-82.

Plaintiff received state disability benefits for approximately five months; from May 1, 

2009, to September 27, 2009.3 Tr. at 31. However, the SSA continued to offset Plaintiff’s Social 

 

1 Applicants who have been approved to receive Social Security benefits are subject to a fivemonth waiting period before disability benefits are actually paid. 20 C.F.R. § 404.320(b)(4).

2 Under the Social Security Act, benefits are computed in dollars and cents but are rounded down 

to the dollar when paid. 20 C.F.R. § 404.408(c)(3)(i)(C).

3

Since public disability benefits are paid weekly, Plaintiff’s Social Security benefit for September,

Case 5:14-cv-02197-EJD Document 22 Filed 03/25/16 Page 2 of 6
3

Case No.: 5:14-cv-02197-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; GRANTING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Security benefits after the state benefits ceased and, as a result, underpaid Plaintiff. Tr. at 79. 

Thus, in August 2011, the SSA made a lump sum payment of $11,499.00 to Plaintiff for backbenefits. Tr. at 86. After the lump sum payment, the SSA adjusted Plaintiff’s Social Security 

benefits to $1,030.00, which it stated was the Total Family Benefit due to Plaintiff.4 Tr. at 25. 

Plaintiff disagreed with this amount of adjusted monthly benefits. Tr. at 131. Before the 

ALJ, Plaintiff stated that she was entitled to an ongoing monthly benefit equivalent to 80% of her 

highest earnings in 2004. Tr. at 132. The ALJ, however, explained that the amount calculated by 

taking 80% of Plaintiff’s highest earnings is used only to determine the offset, but that Plaintiff’s 

benefit rate is calculated differently. Tr. at 13, 134. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Review of Commissioner’s Final Decision

As indicated, this court has authority to review the Commissioner’s final decision pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). When conducting such review, § 405(g) provides that “[t]he findings of the 

Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be 

conclusive . . . .” Accordingly, the district court’s jurisdiction is limited to determining whether 

the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record, and 

reversal is only appropriate where it is not supported by substantial evidence or the decision is 

based on legal error. See Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001) (“We uphold the 

Commissioner’s decision denying benefits if the Commissioner applied the proper legal standard 

and there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the decision.”).

“Substantial evidence” is more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance. Thomas v. 

Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002). The key inquiry is whether the record, read as a 

whole, yields such evidence as would allow a reasonable mind to accept the conclusions reached 

 

2009, was offset by $705.70, resulting in a benefit amount of $615.10. 

4 Beginning in December 2011, Plaintiff’s monthly Social Security benefit was subject to a cost of 

living adjustment and increased to $1,067.00 per 42. U.S.C. § 415(i)(2)(A)(ii). Tr. at 29. 

Case 5:14-cv-02197-EJD Document 22 Filed 03/25/16 Page 3 of 6
4

Case No.: 5:14-cv-02197-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; GRANTING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

by the Commissioner. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 381, 401 (1971); Sample v. Schweiker, 

694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982). Where evidence is susceptible of more than one rational

interpretation, it is the Commissioner’s conclusion which must be upheld. Rhinehart v. Finch, 438 

F.2d 920, 921 (9th Cir. 1971). Moreover, in rendering findings, the Commissioner is entitled to 

draw inferences logically flowing from the evidence. See Beane v. Richardson, 457 F.2d 758 (9th 

Cir. 1972).

B. Pro Se Pleadings

Where, as here, the pleadings at issue are filed by a plaintiff proceeding pro se, they must 

be construed liberally. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). In doing so, the 

court employs “common sense in interpreting the frequently diffuse pleadings of pro se 

complainants.” McKinney v. De Bord, 507 F.2d 501, 504 (9th Cir. 1974). 

III. DISCUSSION

Liberally construing Plaintiff’s pleadings, the court understands the issue for review to be

whether the SSA correctly calculated Plaintiff’s “average current earnings,” which it undertook to 

determine the amount of SSDI payable to Plaintiff after offset for her receipt of state disability 

benefits. Specifically, Plaintiff argues her “average current earnings” during the relevant period is

actually $4,954.64, which she believes entitles her to an ongoing monthly benefit of 80% of that 

amount, or $3,963.71. Accordingly, Plaintiff proposes she is owed $254,017.05 in retroactive 

benefits as of December, 2015. 

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 424a, a person who receives SSDI and state disability benefits 

cannot receive combined benefits that exceed 80% of her “average current earnings.” Siaperas v. 

Mont. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 480 F.3d 1001, 1003 (9th Cir. 2007). Thus, “[w]hen a person’s 

combined benefits exceed 80% of her pre-disability earnings, SSDI must be reduced via an 

‘offset.’” Id. 

Under the implementing regulations, “average current earnings” is defined as the higher of 

the following: (1) the average monthly wage which is used to compute the disability insurance 

Case 5:14-cv-02197-EJD Document 22 Filed 03/25/16 Page 4 of 6
5

Case No.: 5:14-cv-02197-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; GRANTING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

benefit; (2) one-sixtieth of the total of the individual’s wages for the 5 consecutive calendar years 

after 1950 for which the wages were highest; or (3) one-twelfth of the total of the individual’s 

wages for the calendar year in which the individual had the highest wages during the period 

consisting of the disability onset calendar year and the 5 years immediately preceding that year, 

rounded down to the next lower multiple of $1. 20 C.F.R. § 404.408(c)(3)(i)(A)-(C). 

Applying the rules here, both the SSA and Plaintiff agree that Plaintiff’s “average current 

earnings” is highest under the third calculation method. Tr. at 13, 31; Pl. Mot. Summ. J., Dkt. No. 

18. The record shows Plaintiff’s highest wage in the relevant period was $19,818.56 in the year 

2004. Tr. at 20, 23. Thus, Plaintiff’s “average current earnings” are one-twelfth of $19,818.56, or

$1,651. 20 C.F.R. § 404.408(c)(3)(i)(C). And since Plaintiff cannot receive combined benefits 

that exceed 80% of $1,651, or $1,320.80 per month, the SSA correctly determined the “offset”

when it reduced her monthly SSDI to $527.80 after accounting for Plaintiff’s receipt of state

disability benefits of $793.00. 

Plaintiff’s alternative formulation of “average current earnings” - dividing the total amount 

of her 2004 earnings by the number of months in which those earnings were received - is contrary 

to the explicit language of the regulations, which unambiguously explain the way “average current 

earnings” should be calculated. 20 C.F.R. § 404.408(c)(3)(i)(A)-(C). Similarly, the Social 

Security Act does not support Plaintiff to the extent she argues the “offset” SSDI amount 

calculated under § 424a should continue even after she no longer receives other qualifying 

benefits. After the state disability benefits ceased, the calculation of Plaintiff’s SSDI was subject 

to another statute, 42 U.S.C. § 423, which bases the amount of benefits on the “primary insurance 

amount.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(2). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s estimation of retroactive benefits

through December, 2015, is erroneous because it is calculated using an incorrect metric. 

Since the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the 

administrative record as to the calculation of SSDI, she is entitled to summary judgment. As a 

consequence, and for the reasons explained, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment must be 

Case 5:14-cv-02197-EJD Document 22 Filed 03/25/16 Page 5 of 6
6

Case No.: 5:14-cv-02197-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; GRANTING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

denied. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED (Dkt No.

18) and the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 20) is GRANTED. 

Judgment will be entered in favor the Commissioner and the clerk shall close this file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-02197-EJD Document 22 Filed 03/25/16 Page 6 of 6