## Facts

- Joseph Parra applied for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) in 1994, alleging disability beginning in 1992 due to alcoholism and bursitis.
- An ALJ denied benefits, finding Parra’s physical-ailment testimony not credible and concluding alcoholism was a material contributing factor to disability under 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(C).
- The district court remanded under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for consideration of a post-hearing medical examination.
- Parra died in 2000 from conditions including hepatorenal syndrome, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver cirrhosis; his daughter, Cathleen Parra, was substituted as claimant.
- After further proceedings and another remand to reconsider Cathleen’s testimony, a different ALJ found Parra disabled from July 1, 1999 until death, but concluded he was not entitled to DIB for the pre-1996 insured period because alcoholism materially contributed to any earlier disability; SSI was dismissed as nonpayable due to death without a qualifying survivor.
- The district court upheld the Commissioner’s denial of DIB for the insured period; Cathleen appealed.

## Issues

1. When there is evidence of drug addiction or alcoholism, which party bears the burden of proving whether substance abuse is a contributing factor material to the disability determination under 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(C)?
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that alcoholism was a material contributing factor to any disability during the relevant insured period.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment upholding the Commissioner’s denial of DIB for the relevant insured period.
- The court held that, once there is evidence of drug addiction or alcoholism, the claimant bears the burden to prove substance abuse is not a contributing factor material to disability.
- Applying that rule, the court concluded the claimant failed to show Parra would have been disabled independent of alcoholism, and substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s materiality finding.

## Legal Principles

- Under 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(C), an individual is not disabled if alcoholism or drug addiction is a contributing factor material to the Commissioner’s disability determination.
- SSA regulations require determining (1) disability considering all impairments, including substance use, and then (2) whether the claimant would remain disabled if substance use stopped; if not, substance abuse is material.
- In the Ninth Circuit, the claimant bears the burden of proving non-materiality of drug addiction or alcoholism once evidence of such abuse exists.
- The materiality burden allocation is consistent with the general rule that claimants bear the burden to establish entitlement to disability benefits, and with decisions from other circuits imposing the same burden on claimants.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that when the record shows drug or alcohol abuse, the claimant must prove the abuse is not material to disability; because Parra did not meet that burden for the insured period, the denial of DIB was affirmed.


Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2007)