Alan Brinker v. Carolyn W. Colvin

Good Law
603 F. App'x 609
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 15, 201512-17565California490 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

In 1993, Alan Brinker was awarded disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. He appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision that Brinker’s disability ended in January 2001. We review de novo, Molina v. As true, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.2012). We have considered the parties’ contentions, including Brinker’s arguments in his opening and reply brief. We affirm the district court.

The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) did not err in finding that Brinker completed a “trial work period” when he performed services for a total of nine nonconsecutive months in a sixty-month period between 1996 and December 2000. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1592 (e)(2) (defining the beginning and end of a “trial work period”), 404.1594(d)(5) & (f)(1) (performance of substantial gainful activity following the completion of a trial work period establishes that the individual is no longer disabled); Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1039 (9th Cir.2007) (discussing regulations that provide for a trial work period in which a claimant may work and still be considered disabled). Brinker’s contention that he did not…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.