Charles Elmore v. Carolyn Colvin

MEMORANDUM

Claimant Charles Elmore appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review the district court’s decision de novo, Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.2012), and we affirm.

1. Elmore first argues that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred in relying on evidence related to the Cooperative Disability Investigations Unit (“CDIU”) investigation. In particular, El-more asserts that the CDIU’s. use of a pretext interview was both inconsistent with the broad remedial purpose of the Social Security Act and the type of arbitrary government action that “shocks the conscience.” This argument has no merit. The Social Security Act expressly authorizes the Commissioner to “conduct such investigations and other proceedings as the Commissioner may deem necessary or proper.” 42 U.S.C. § 405 (b)(1); see also Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir.1989) (“The Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income programs are intended to provide benefits to people who are unable…