T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y f i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f

orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

*** T h e H o n o r ab le G le n n L . A r c h e r , J r ., S e n io rU n ite d S ta te s C ir c u it J udge f orthe F e de r a l C i r c ui t , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on.

NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT DE B OR AH MONA N, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. M I C H A E L J . A S T R U E , C om m i s s i one rof S oc i a l S e c ur i ty A dm i ni s tr a t i on D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 15894 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 8 - c v - 0 0 2 2 3 - H RH ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona H . R us s e l H ol l a nd, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 16, 2009 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia Be f o r e : A RCH ER, C A L L A H A N , an d B E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. *** 

# FI LED APR21 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST he part i es ar e f am i l i arw i th the fa ct s of the ca se , so w e r epea tthem here 1 onl y t o the e xt e ntne c e s s a ry t o e xpl a i n ourde c i s i on. 2 D e bor a h M ona n ( “ M ona n” ) appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s j udgm e ntr e m a ndi ng her c l ai m for di sabi l i ty and supp l em ent al soci al se curi ty benef i t s f or further p r o c e e d i n g s . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f f i rm. 1 In grant i ng M on an’ s m ot i on for s um m ary j ud gm ent , the di stri ctcourt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e a d m in is tr a tiv e la w ju d g e ( “A L J ” ) h a d e rr e d b y im p r o p e r ly re j ec t i ng the op i ni on s of D r. B el m on t e and D r. T rom p. T he courtthen con cl ud ed th a t th e c a s e w a s to b e r e m a n d e d f o rf u r th e rp r o c e e d in g s . M o n a n c h a lle n g e s th is de t e rm i na t i on on the gr ound tha tthe pr ope rc our s e of a c t i on i s t o r e m a nd f

or p aym en to f b en efi t s. W e h a v e s e t f

o r th th e f o llo w in g te s t f

o rd e te rm in in g w h e n e v id e n c e s h o u ld be c r e di t e d a nd a n i m m e di a t e a w a r d of be ne f i t s di r e c t e d:

“ ( 1) the A L J ha s f

a i l e d t o pr ovi de l e ga l l y s uf f i c i e ntr e a s ons f

orr e j e c t i ng such evi dence, (2) there ar e no o ut st andi ng i ss ues thatm ustbe re sol ved be f or e ade t e rm i na t i on of

di s abi l i ty c a n be m a de , a nd ( 3) i ti s c l e a rf r om the re cord thatthe A L J w ou l d b e r equi re d t o fi nd the cl ai m antdi sabl ed w er e s u c h e v id e n c e c r e d ite d .” H arm an v. Apf

el , 211 F . 3d 1172, 1178 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng Sm ol en v. Cha ter , 8 0 F .3 d 1 2 7 3 , 1 2 9 2 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) ) . W e r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u r t's d e c is io n to r e m a n d ac a s e to th e C o m m is s io n e rf o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . I

d. a t1173.3

E ve n a s s um i ng tha taf

i ndi ng of “ di s abl e d” w e r e c l e a rba s e d on the opi ni ons o f D r. B el m o n t e an d D r. T ro m p , a rem an d w o u l d st i l l b e n ecessary in th i s case b e c au s e th e AL J d i d n o tp e r f o rm ap r o p e rd ru g a n d a l c o h o l a n a l y s i s ( “ DA A A n a ly s is ” ) . “‘A f in d in g o f “d is ab le d ” u n d e rth e f iv e - s te p in q u iry d o e s n o t au to m a tic a lly qu alify a c l ai m antfor di sabi l i ty benef i t s. ’ ” P ar r a v . A s tr ue , 4 8 1 F .3 d 7 4 2 , 7 4 6 ( 9 th C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng B u sta m a n te v. M a ssa n a ri , 26 2 F . 3d 94 9, 95 4 (9 th C ir. 20 01 )) .

“ U n d er 4 2 U . S . C . § 4 2 3 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( C ) , ac la im a n t c a n n o t r e c e iv e d is ab ility b e n e f its ‘if a l c o hol i s m ordrug a ddi c t i on w oul d . . . be ac ontr i but i ng f a c t orm a t e r i a l t o the C o m m i ss i on er ’ s det erm i nat i on thatthe i nd i vi du al i s di sabl ed. ’ ” I d. “ U nde rthe im p le m e n tin g r e g u la tio n s , th e A L J m u s t c o n d u c t ad ru g ab u s e a n d a lc o h o lis m a n a ly s is ( “D A A A n a ly s is ” ) b y d e te rm in in g w h ic h o f th e c la im a n t’s d is ab lin g lim ita tio n s w o u ld r e ma i n i f the c l a i ma nt s t op pe d us i ng drug s or a l c oh ol . ” I d. a t7 4 7 . T h e DA A a n a ly s is m u s t b e p e r f o rm e d a f

te rth e A L J h a s m a d e th e f iv e - s te p d is ab ility d e te rm in a tio n . See i d. I n th e p r e s e n t c a s e , th e r e w a s n o d e te rm in a tio n o f “d is ab le d .” T hus , w hi l e the A L J di s c ussed M o na n’ s drug us e , he c oul d notha ve pe r f orm e d the m a nda t e d D A A abs e ntadi s abi l i ty de t e rm i na t i on. A d d itio n a lly , i tis p o s s ib le th a t th e A L J d id h a v e le g a lly s u f f ic ie n t, a lb e it un art i cul at ed, re as on s a s t o w hy he re j ec t ed the op i ni on s of D r. B elm o n te and D r.T he C om m i s s i one r ' s m ot i on t o s tr i ke i s de ni e d. 2 4 T r o m p t h a t h e c o u ld e x p la in o n r e m a n d . C f . Salv adorv . Sul l i v an , 917 F . 2d 13, 15 (9th C i r. 19 90 ). B ec ause there i s at l ea st on e ou t st andi ng i ss ue thatm ustbe re sol ved b ef ore a n aw ar d o f di sabi li ty benefi t s c an be m ade, the di stri ctcourtprop er l y r em anded M o n an ’ s case fo r fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s. 2 AF F I RME D.