Yarbrough v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/15/18 AFFIRMING the final decision of the Commissioner and the Clerk of the Court shall close this case. CASE CLOSED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHARLES SIDNEY YARBROUGH,

12

No. 2:17-cv-1953-KJN

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18

Plaintiff Charles Sidney Yarbrough, who proceeds without counsel, seeks judicial review

19

of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying plaintiff’s

20

claim for Widower’s Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. After carefully

21

reviewing the parties’ briefing (ECF Nos. 15, 18, 20), the court AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s

22

final decision.1
The court reviews the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether (1) it is based on

23
24

proper legal standards pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and (2) substantial evidence in the record

25

as a whole supports it. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 1999). Substantial

26

evidence is more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance. Connett v. Barnhart, 340

27
28

1

All parties voluntarily consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge for all
purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF Nos. 6, 16.)
1

1

F.3d 871, 873 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). It means “such relevant evidence as a reasonable

2

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th

3

Cir. 2007), quoting Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005).

4

In this case, the ALJ found that, although plaintiff was validly married under California

5

law to his deceased spouse, Mary Beth Rosson, from February 26, 2014, to September 28, 2014,

6

plaintiff did not meet the nine-month duration of marriage requirement for Widower’s Insurance

7

Benefits; nor did he satisfy any of the statutory exceptions to that requirement. See 42 U.S.C. §

8

416(g). On appeal, plaintiff does not challenge the ALJ’s underlying factual findings, but

9

contends that the nine-month duration of marriage requirement is unfair and violates the United

10

States Constitution. Although the court is sympathetic to plaintiff’s plight, plaintiff’s argument is

11

plainly foreclosed by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Weinberger v. Salfi, 422

12

U.S. 749 (1975), which expressly found the Act’s duration of relationship requirement

13

constitutional.2 Additionally, contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the requirement does not conflict

14

with California law, which does not purport to define the contours and rules of a federal benefits

15

program.

16
17

Accordingly, the final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and the Clerk of
Court shall close this case.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED. This order resolves ECF Nos. 15 and 18.
Dated: November 15, 2018

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

As the Supreme Court explained, the duration of relationship requirement was enacted primarily
as a prophylactic rule to prevent sham marriages for benefits. See Weinberger, 422 U.S. at 777.
To be clear, neither the Commissioner nor this court suggests that plaintiff’s marriage in this case
was actually a sham marriage to procure benefits. Indeed, the Supreme Court acknowledged that
legitimate marriages may sometimes be swept within the ambit of the rule: “The question is
whether Congress, its concern having been reasonably aroused by the possibility of an abuse
which it legitimately desired to avoid, could rationally have concluded both that a particular
limitation or qualification would protect against its occurrence, and that the expense and other
difficulties of individual determinations justified the inherent imprecision of a prophylactic rule.”
Id. Nevertheless, regardless of the rule’s potential imprecision and shortcomings, the Supreme
Court held that it passed constitutional muster, and this court is bound by that holding.
2