N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

AR M IN B ENDER ,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,

v. ANDR EW

M

. SAUL, C om

m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 18-35817 D.C . No. 3:16-c v-02118-PK

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M i c ha e l W . M osm a

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 13, 2019 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : HAW KINS a n d M c KEOW N , C irc uit Judge s , a

nd PR ATT, *** Distric t Judge

. 

# F IL ED
DEC 17 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a t ion a nd i s not pre c e d e nt e xc e pt a s provide d by

Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The p a ne l una

n im ously c onc lude s this c a se i s suita b le for de c i s i o n w i t h o u t ora l a rgum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble R obe rt W

. Pra tt, Se ni o r U n it e d Sta te s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of Iowa , sitting by de signa t ion.Pla intiff Arm in B e nde r (“ B e nde r” ) a ppe a ls t he d istric t c ourt de c ision a ffirm ing the C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s (“ C om m i ssione r” ) de nia l of disa

bility be ne fits. R e vie wing the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tfinding for s ubsta ntia l e vide nc e , Bie

s te k v . Be r

ry hill , 139 S. C t. 1148, 1154 (2019), we a ffirm

. The Adm i n istra

tive La w Judge (“ ALJ” ) pe rform e d the five -ste p se que ntia l

a na ly sis a nd de te rm i n e d tha t B e nde r wa s disa ble d; tha t is, t

ha t ta king into a c c ount his

a ge , e duc a tion, work e xpe rie n c e a nd lim i ta tions, B e nde r c a nnot e nga g e in a ny othe r substa ntia l ga i nful a c tivity e xisting in the n a tiona l e c o nom y . 2 0 C. F

. R

. § 404. 1 52 0 ( a )(4). Howe ve r, be c a use the re w a s a lso e vide nc e of s ignific a nt drug a n d

a lc ohol a buse (“ DAA” ), t

he ALJ wa s a l so re quire d to de te rm ine the m a te ria lity of DAA to the finding of disa bility . 20 C .F.R

§§ 404.1535(a

), 416.935(a ). The “ c la i m a nt b e a rs the burde n of proving tha t drug or a lc ohol a ddic tion is not

a c ontributing fa c tor m at e ria l to his disa bility .” Parra v . Astrue , 4 81 F.3d 742, 748 (9th C ir. 2007). He re , the ALJ found tha t the a m oun t o f m ar i j ua na B e nde r sm oke d da ily would re nde r h im una ble t o work o n a c onsiste nt a nd re g ula r ba sis a nd inc lude d

a lim ita tion i n B e nde r’ s re s idua l func tiona l c a p a c ity tha t he would b e ab s e nt from work a t l e a st t

w o o r thre e da

y s a m onth. W ith suc h a lim ita t ion, the v oc a tiona l e xpe rt opine d B e nde r c ould no t w o r k, but, without suc h a lim ita tion, t he e xpe rt opine d B e nde r would be a

ble to find work in the n a tiona l e c o no m y. The re fore , the ALJ

2c onc lude d tha t the DAA w a s a m a te ria l c ontributing fa c tor t o his disa bili t y, whic h pre c lude d the a wa rd of be ne fits. 42 U.S.C . § 423 (d)(2)(C ). Our de fe re ntia l re vie w te lls us if t he re c o rd c o nside re d a s a whole c a n
re a s ona bly support e i t

he r a ffirm ing or re ve rsing the C om m issione r’ s de c ision, we

m ust a ffirm

. H

ile r v . A strue , 687 F.3d 1208, 1211 (9th C i r. 2 012). At le a st one doc tor opine d it would be d i ffic ult for B e nde r to a tte nd work on a

re gula r ba sis while using

m a rijua na to the e xte nt he d id, whic h w a s ofte n se ve ra l t im e s da ily

. D o ct o rs a lso opine d t he drug use wa s m a king B e nde r’ s de pre ssion a n d a nxie ty w orse n, or tha t he ha d a substa

nc e -induc e d m ood disorde r. During lim ite d pe riods of sobrie t y , B e nde r did a ppe a r to im

p r o ve a nd h a ve m ild to m ode ra te m e nta l lim ita tions, whic h we re othe rwise a c c ounte d for in the res i dua l func tioning c a pa c ity a nd a c c om

m o da te d by

re stric ting B e nde r to sim

ple work with m inim a l soc ia l inte ra c tion. The ALJ’ s d e te rm ina tion is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e , a nd the a ge nc y ’ s de c ision is the re fore AFFIRM E D.

3