Joe M. Lopez v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security

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).
The Honorable James G. Carr, Senior United States District Judge for***
the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOE M. LOPEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 11-55086
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-06794-AHS-
MAN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Alicemarie H. Stotler, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Pasadena, California
Before: BERZON and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and CARR, Senior District
Judge.***
FILED
FEB 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
To be eligible for a waiver of overpaid Social Security benefits, Lopez has
the burden of establishing that he was without fault in causing the overpayment.
See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.506(c), 404.507; McCarthy v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1119, 1126
(9th Cir. 2000). Lopez contends that he was without fault, notwithstanding his
failure to inform the Administration of his lump-sum worker’s compensation
payment, because multiple surgeries and the accompanying fear of dying rendered
him unable to understand his obligation to report to the Administration any
changes in his worker’s compensation.
The ALJ determined that Lopez was not without fault in causing the
overpayment because Lopez understood but failed to comply with his reporting
obligation. That determination is supported by substantial evidence. See 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.507; Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that substantial
evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion”). In his signed application for Social Security benefits,
Lopez expressly acknowledged that his reporting responsibilities had been
explained to him and that he would abide by them. Those responsibilities were
again communicated to Lopez by the certificate awarding him Social Security
benefits. Nothing in the record suggests that Lopez failed to understand (or was
unable to comply with) this reporting requirement.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Nor was the ALJ required to further develop the record on this score. This is
not a case in which the evidence is “ambiguous” or the record is “inadequate” for
the ALJ to properly evaluate the evidence presented. See Mayes v. Massanari, 276
F.3d 453, 459–60 (9th Cir. 2001). When Lopez testified before the ALJ, he
mentioned his illness and his multiple surgeries, but he presented no evidence that
his condition made it impossible for him to understand or to comply with his
reporting obligation during the three years between his receipt of worker’s
compensation benefits and the Administration’s notice of overpayment. Rather
than close the record at the conclusion of the hearing, the ALJ left the record open
for thirty days, during which Lopez failed to provide any additional evidence.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --