Christopher Jones v. Andrew Saul

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NOV 13 2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER JONES, No. 18-35657
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00215-CWD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Candy Dale, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 25, 2019
Portland, Oregon
Before: FARRIS, BEA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The record supports the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of
Christopher Jones’s application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of
the Social Security Act. Jones does not suffer from a severe impairment under the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Act because he had no medically determinable impairments before his insured
status for disability benefits expired.
Disability consideration is limited to impairments “demonstrable by
medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” 42 U.S.C. §
423(d)(3), and the claimant bears the burden of showing that he had a medically
determinable impairment, see Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 (1987) (citing
42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A)). “‘In claims in which there are no medical signs or
laboratory findings to substantiate the existence of a medically determinable
physical or mental impairment, the individual must be found not disabled.’”
Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting SSR 96–4p,
1996 WL 374187, at *1–2).
Jones did not meet his burden of showing that the ALJ erred by severing his
application for Title XVI benefits from his application for Title II benefits. Jones
provided no evidence of medical treatment within his Title II eligibility window of
July 15, 2008 to December 31, 2013, nor any medical or laboratory findings that
would substantiate the existence of a qualifying physical or mental impairment.
Consulting experts agreed that the record contained insufficient evidence to
retrospectively diagnose Jones with a mental disability that began during his
eligibility period. The ALJ made appropriate inquiry to develop the record and
2
properly discounted the testimonies of Jones’s mother and social worker.
Substantial evidence supports its denial of Jones’s claim.
AFFIRMED.
3