Richard Sutton v. Nancy Berryhill

Ninth Circuit

Richard Sutton v. Nancy Berryhill

677 F. App'x 341

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 13, 2017

Docket15-35722

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 677 F. App'x 341 (Richard Sutton v. Nancy Berryhill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richard Sutton v. Nancy Berryhill, 677 F. App'x 341 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Richard Sutton appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision that he had been overpaid disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and was not entitled to a waiver of overpayment. Sutton concedes that his DIB was properly offset by a state workers’ compensation benefit for the period from January through April 2011 but challenges an offset for the period from January through November 2010. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Commissioner “bears the burden of proving the fact and amount of overpayment.” McCarthy v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1119, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000). We review the Commissioner’s determination for substantial evidence. Id. at 1125. We reverse and remand.

Sutton’s lump-sum Washington state permanent partial disability award was not a periodic benefit subject to offset. See 42 U.S.C. § 424a(a) (an individual’s DIB must be offset by any “periodic benefits on account of his or her total or partial disability (whether or not permanent) under a workmen’s compensation law or plan of the United States or a State” if the total of the two benefits exceeds a certain amount); see also id. § 424a(b) (a lump-sum benefit is excluded from this requirement “except to the extent that it is a commutation of, or a substitute for,' period payments”). This court has held that where state law provided that a lump-sum award was intended to compensate for the economic loss of earning capacity, the award was a periodic *342 benefit subject to offset. Hodge v. Shalala, 27 F.3d 430, 432-33 (9th Cir 1994). Under Washington law, however, an award of workers’ compensation benefits for permanent partial disability is not wage compensation intended to cover a claimant’s lost earning capacity. See Willoughby v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus. of the State of Wash., 147 Wash.2d 725, 57 P.3d 611, 616-17 (2002); McIndoe v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 144 Wash.2d 252, 26 P.3d 903, 908 (2001). We therefore reverse the district court’s judgment and remand with instructions to remand to the Commissioner for a recalculation and refund of any offset against Sutton’s DIB.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Richard Sutton appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision that he had been overpaid disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and was not entitled to a waiver of overpayment. Sutton concedes that his DIB was properly offset by a state workers’ compensation benefit for the period from January through April 2011 but challenges an offset for the period from January through November 2010. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Commissioner “bears the burden of proving the fact and amount of overpayment.” McCarthy v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1119, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000). We review the Commissioner’s determination for substantial evidence. Id. at 1125. We reverse and remand.

Sutton’s lump-sum Washington state permanent partial disability award was not a periodic benefit subject to offset. See 42 U.S.C. § 424a(a) (an individual’s DIB must be offset by any “periodic benefits on account of his or her total or partial disability (whether or not permanent) under a workmen’s compensation law or plan of the United States or a State” if the total of the two benefits exceeds a certain amount); see also id. § 424a(b) (a lump-sum benefit is excluded from this requirement “except to the extent that it is a commutation of, or a substitute for,' period payments”). This court has held that where state law provided that a lump-sum award was intended to compensate for the economic loss of earning capacity, the award was a periodic *342 benefit subject to offset. Hodge v. Shalala, 27 F.3d 430, 432-33 (9th Cir 1994). Under Washington law, however, an award of workers’ compensation benefits for permanent partial disability is not wage compensation intended to cover a claimant’s lost earning capacity. See Willoughby v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus. of the State of Wash., 147 Wash.2d 725, 57 P.3d 611, 616-17 (2002); McIndoe v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 144 Wash.2d 252, 26 P.3d 903, 908 (2001). We therefore reverse the district court’s judgment and remand with instructions to remand to the Commissioner for a recalculation and refund of any offset against Sutton’s DIB.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

677 F. App'x 341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-sutton-v-nancy-berryhill-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack