FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT APRIL1, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 14336 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -000 55 -C V -C -N G A R Y L . P E A R S O N , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s M I C H A E L J . A S T R U E , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M i d d l e D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( A p r i l1, 2008) B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: G a ry P e a r s on appe a l s ade c i s i on tha ta f f i rm e d the de ni a l of

hi s appl i c a t i on2

for di sabi l i ty i nsurance benef i t s and supp l em ent al se curi ty i ncom e f rom the S oci al S e c ur i ty A dm i ni s tr a t i on. 42 U . S . C . §§ 405( g) , 1383( c ) ( 3) . P e a r s on c ha l l e nge s the rul i ng on tw o gr ounds . F i r s t , P e a r s on a r gue s tha tthe a dm i ni s tr a t i ve l a w j udge f a i l e d t o s t a t e w ha tw e i ghthe a c c or de d the f i ndi ng by the V e t e r a ns A dm i ni s tr a t i on tha tP e a r s on w a s t ot a l l y di s abl e d. S e c ond, P e a r s on a r gue s tha tthe a dm i ni s tr a t i ve l a w j udge appl i e d a n e rr one ous l e ga l s t anda r d t o c onc l ude tha tP e a r s on’ s a l c ohol abus e m a t e r i a l l y c ontr i but e d t o hi s m e nt a l i m pa i rm e nt s a nd ba rr e d hi m f r om r e c e i v i n g s o c i a l s e c u r i ty b e n e f i t s . W e a f

f i rm. W e r evi ew the deci si on by the C om m i ss i on er“ t o d et erm i ne i f i ti s s up po rt ed by s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e a nd ba s e d on pr ope rl e ga l s t a nda r ds . ” L e w i s v. C a l l a ha n, 12 5 F . 3d 14 36 , 14 39 (11th C i r. 19 97 ). S ub st ant i al evi dence consi st s of “ such r e le v a n t e v id e n c e a s ar e a s o n ab le p e r s o n w o u ld a c c e p t a s a d e q u a te to s u p p o rt a c o n c lu s io n .” I d . a t 1 4 4 0 . T h e b u r d e n r e s ts w ith th e c la im a n t to p r o v e th a t h e is di sabl ed and ent i t l ed t o S oci al S ec uri ty benef i t s. S ee 20 C . F . R . § 4 04 . 15 12 (a ); D ou gh ty v. A pfel , 24 5 F . 3d 12 74 , 12 78 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). T h e r e c o r d s u p p o rts th e c o n c lu s io n b yth e a d m in is tr a tiv e law ju d g e th a t, a l though P e a r s on r e c e i ve d at ot a l di s abi l i tyr a t i ng by the V e t e r a ns A dm i ni s tr a t i on, he di d notqua l i f

y f orS oc i a l S e c ur i tybe ne f i t s . W a l ke rv. B ow e n, 826 F . 2d 996, 99 9 (11 th C i r. 19 87 ). T he V et er ans A dm i ni stra t i on concl ud ed thatP ears on w as3

t ot a l l y di s abl e d due t o abi pol a rdi s or de r , l ow ba c k pa i n, a nd hype rt e ns i on. T he ra t i ng w as aw ar ded b as ed on the fi nd i ng by the A dm i ni stra t i on thatP ears on had an

“ i m pa i rm e ntof

m i nd orbody w hi c h [ w a s ] s uf f i c i e ntt o r e nde ri t s i m pos s i bl e f or th e a v e r a g e p e r s o n to f

o llo w as u b s ta n tia llyg a in f u l o c c u p a tio n .” 3 8 C .F .R . § 3. 340( a ) ( 1) . T hi s r a t i ng, a l though gi ve n “ gr e a tw e i ght , ” w a s notbi ndi ng on the a d m in is tr a tiv e la w ju d g e . B r a d y v . H e c k le r , 7 2 4 F .2 d 9 1 4 , 9 2 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) . T h e r e c o r d e s tab lis h e s th a t th e a d m in is tr a tiv e la w ju d g e c o n s id e r e d th e r a tin g in h is de c i s i on a nd c orr e c t l y e xpl a i ne d tha tac l a i m a ntha d t o s a t i s f yam or e s tr i nge nt s t a nda r d t o be f

ound di s abl e d unde rthe S oc i a l S e c ur i tyA c t . S e e 42 U . S . C . §§ 42 3(d)(2)(A ), 13 82 c( a) (3)( B ). S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the f i ndi ng by the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve l a w j udge th a t P e a r s o n ’s c o n tin u in g a lc o h o l ab u s e w a s ac o n tr ib u tin g f a c to rto h is d is ab ility . A n ap p lic a n t f

o rS o c ia l S e c u r ityb e n e f its “s h a ll n o t b e c o n s id e r e d to b e d is ab le d . . . i f a lco h o li sm . . . w o u ldb e a co n trib u ti n g fa cto r m ater ial t o th e C o m m issio n er ’s de t e rm i na t i on tha tthe i ndi vi dua l i s di s abl e d. ” 42 U . S . C . § 423( d) ( 2) ( C ) . P e a r s on ha d ahi s t ory of

a l c ohol abus e a nd w a s a w a r de d di s abi l i tyi ns ur a nc e be ne f i t s a nd s u p p le m e n ta l s e c u r ityin c o m e in 1 9 9 6 b a s e d , in p a rt, o n h is a lc o h o l d e p e n d e n c e . P e a r s on m a de s t a t e m e nt s t o va r i ous m e di c a l pe r s onne l w hi c h e s t abl i s he d tha the c ont i nue d t o dr i nk thr ough the e a r l ym onths of 2003. P e a r s on di d notof f e ra ny4

evi dence, other than h i s i ncre di bl e t es t i m on y, t o est abl i sh thathe no l on ger abu se d a l c ohol . S e e D oughty , 245 F . 3d a t1280. A l tho ug h the A dm i ni stra t i ve L aw Judg e f ou nd thatP ears on w as di sabl ed du e t o h i s m aj or depres si on , the j ud ge w as re qu i re d t o “ det erm i ne w hether” P e a r s on’ s “ a l c ohol i s m [ w a s ] ac ontr i but i ng f a c t orm a t e r i a l t o the de t e rm i na t i on of [h i s] d i sab i l i ty” b ased o n h i s h i st o ry. 2 0 C . F . R . § 4 0 4 . 1 5 3 5 . C l i n i cal p sych o l o g i st N ancyS ac k t es t i fi ed thatP ears on ’ s f un ct i on i ng no t i ce abl y i m prov ed w hen h e w as no tun der the i nfl uence of al coho l . O bj ec t i ve expertm edi ca l evi dence es t abl i shed tha tP e a r s on c oul d pe r f

orm l i ghtphy s i c a l t a s ks , c om pl e t e m os tc om pl e x de c i s i ons an d t ask s, an d i n t eractw i th o th ers. P earso n ’ s st at em en t s th ath e read , cu th i s g rass, an d t o o kd ai l y w al k s d u ri n g w h i ch h e w o u l d v i si tw i th n ei g h b o rs su p p o rt ed th ese concl usi on s. S ub st ant i al evi dence s up po rt s the fi nd i ng by the A dm i ni stra t i ve L aw Judg e thatal coho l i sm w as a c on tri bu t i ng fa ct or t o P ears on ’ s di sabi l i ty. S ee D oughty , 245 F . 3d a t1281. T h e d en i al o f P earso n ’ s ap p l i cat i o n fo r b en efi t s i s A FFI R M ED .