Louanna Stubbs-Danielson v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
August 22, 2008
Cite No. 07-35096 D. C. No. CV-06-05212-JKA

Presumption of Continuing Disability, Inapplicable – SSI Benefits Denied

Stubbs-Danielson, the petitioner in this case, first applied for SSI benefits in 1986. It was approved. She then received SSI payments from the same year until about 1995 when it was stopped because she was imprisoned. Upon her release from prison in 2000, she again filed for SSI benefits. This time it was denied. In 2002, Stubbs-Danielson protectively filed the present application subject of this case.

The Commissioner denied her application on initial stage and on reconsideration. Upon her request, she was granted a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). Subsequently, after taking testimony from Stubbs-Danielson and a vocational expert, the ALJ rendered a decision denying her application in 2005.

The ALJ utilized the required five-step sequential framework to determine whether Stubbs-Danielson was disabled or not and found that:

1. Stubbs-Danielson had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged disability onset date


2. Albeit some of the alleged impairments were not “severe” within the meaning of the applicable regulations, her lumbar degenerative discs disease, borderline intellectual functioning, adjustment disorder and obesity were severe


3. None of her conditions met or medically equaled a listed impairment in the regulations. The ALJ found that she “retained the residual capacity to perform simple, routine, repetitive sedentary work, requiring no interaction with the public”


4. She had no past relevant work


5. Upon reliance on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines and the testimony of the vocational expert, she could perform work as a “small products assembler” with 1,000 jobs available regionally and 10,000 available nationwide, and as a “packer/sorter” with 800 jobs available regionally and over 80,000 available nationwide.

Stubbs-Danielson requested for review of the ALJ’s decision but was denied by the Social Security Appeals Council. The decision became final as a result. The district court affirmed. Now she comes before the U.S. Court of Appeals questioning the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits.

Unfortunately for Stubbs-Danielson, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit likewise affirmed the decision of the denial of her application.

Says the Court, “The current regulations state that a claimant’s benefits are suspended upon incarceration, and after 12 months of continuous suspension, benefits are terminated. While the regulations provide for the resumption of suspended benefits upon otherwise eligible recipient’s custody, they provide for no such reinstatement where a recipient’s eligibility has been terminated after 12 consecutive months of suspension.”

From this, the Court concluded that there is no basis for applying a presumption of continuing disability, as argued by Stubbs-Danielson, because in this particular case, her reapplication comes at least 6 years after a termination of benefits and more than 15 years after her previously successful application in 1986.