Frances Lundberg v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCES LUNDBERG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 15-15527
D.C. No. 4:13-cv-02465-RCC-
BPV
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 3, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Frances Lundberg appeals pro se the district court’s decision affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial in part of her application for divorced
FILED
JAN 05 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

spouse retirement insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm the district court’s judgment.
We review de novo the district court’s affirmance of the administrative law
judge’s (ALJ) denial of Social Security benefits and will reverse only if the ALJ’s
decision was not supported by substantial evidence or if the ALJ applied the wrong
legal standard. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012).
The ALJ properly concluded, and the Commissioner does not dispute, that
Lundberg met the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 402(b)(1) and 20 C.F.R. § 404.331
and was entitled to divorced spouse benefits effective March 2009, following her
application in September 2009. See 42 U.S.C. § 402(j)(1)(B) (providing that
benefits are payable beginning six months prior to date of application).
Lundberg contends that a Social Security employee gave her misinformation
during an appointment in September 2005 by failing to inform her of her eligibility
to apply for divorced spouse benefits when she reached full retirement age and
then later switch to collecting her own retirement insurance benefits. She contends
that because of this misinformation, her application for divorced spouse benefits
should be deemed filed in April 2006, when she reached full retirement age. This
contention fails because, by her own admission, Lundberg did not inquire about
her eligibility for switching between her ex-husband’s account and her own, and
2

-- 2 of 3 --

therefore cannot recover for misinformation. See 42 U.S.C. § 402(j)(5); 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.633(c)(4) (stating that misinformation must be provided in response to
specific request about eligibility for benefits).
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --