Sarah Brown v. Carolyn Colvin

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
SEP 30 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SARAH W. BROWN, No. 15-16863
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-02051-VC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Vince G. Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 28, 2016**
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Sarah W. Brown appeals pro se the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for spouse’s
retirement insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Molina v. Astrue, 674
F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.
The wife of an individual entitled to old-age insurance benefits is herself
entitled to a spouse’s insurance benefits if she has attained age 62 and is not
entitled to old-age benefits on her own account. 42 U.S.C. § 402(b)(1); 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.330. An applicant is the wife of the insured “if the courts of the State in
which such insured individual is domiciled at the time such applicant files an
application . . . would find that such applicant and such insured individual were
validly married at the time such applicant files such application.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 416(h)(1)(A)(i).
Brown contends that due to her mental incompetency, a divorce decree
issued in the District of Columbia in 1973 is invalid, and therefore she is still
married to the insured individual on whose account she applied for a spouse’s
benefit in 2007. Brown’s contention lacks merit. Substantial evidence supports
the administrative law judge’s determination that Brown was not the wife of the
insured when she applied for benefits because the courts of Virginia, the state
where the insured was domiciled, would give full faith and credit to the divorce
judgment. See U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1; V.L. v. E.L., 136 S. Ct. 1017, 1020 (2016)
(per curiam).
2
For purposes of full faith and credit, the divorce judgment on its face
appears valid, and therefore the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia to enter the judgment must be presumed. See V.L., 136 S. Ct. at 1020.
Brown, who bears the burden of proof under Virginia law, has not overcome this
presumption by her presentation of extrinsic evidence of her mental incapacity to
receive notice and participate in the divorce proceeding. See Gibson v. Gibson,
364 S.E.2d 518, 521 (Va. Ct. App. 1988). In the District of Columbia, “[a]n
individual is presumed both to be competent and to have the capacity to make legal
and other decisions.” Mitchell v. Gales, 61 A.3d 678, 686 (D.C. 2013) (citing D.C.
Code § 21-2002(d)). In that jurisdiction, a judgment entered against an
incompetent party is voidable, rather than void, and thus may be corrected only by
direct review, and not by collateral attack. Id. at 685-86. Accordingly, the divorce
judgment is res judicata in the District of Columbia. See Hupp v. Hupp, 391
S.E.2d 329, 332 (Va. 1990) (holding that because a Pennsylvania support judgment
made an issue of paternity res judicata in Pennsylvania, relitigation of that issue in
Virginia was barred). The administrative law judge did not err in concluding that
the courts of Virginia would give the District of Columbia divorce judgment full
faith and credit and would find that Brown was not married to the insured when
3
she applied for spouse’s retirement insurance benefits in 2007. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 416(h)(1)(A)(i).
The administrative law judge did not abuse his discretion in denying
Brown’s request for subpoenas, and did not fail to fulfill his duty to fully and fairly
develop the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.950(d)(1); McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d
881, 885 (9th Cir. 2010).
AFFIRMED.
4