James COOPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee

INTRODUCTION

James Cooper seeks disability benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act because of chronic alcoholism. An administrative law judge for the Department of Health and Human Services denied benefits. The AU found that Cooper’s condi *559 tion did not prevent him from undertaking gainful activity. The Appeals Council declined to rehear Cooper’s claim, so the AU’s decision became the final decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Under section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g), Cooper appealed to the district court, which granted summary judgment to the Secretary. This appeal followed.

BACKGROUND

At the time of his hearing in 1984, Cooper was 49 years old with an eighth grade education. He has not worked since a back injury in 1974. He last worked as a machine assembler. In January 1984, a psychiatrist diagnosed Cooper as an alcoholic. At that time, Cooper reported that he drank from a pint to a quart of whiskey every day and had suffered blackouts. He drank even after taking Antabuse, a drug designed to curb drinking by inducing nausea when mixed with alcohol. The examining psychiatrist concluded that Cooper’s alcoholism was…

dissenting:

I would affirm the judgment of the district court.

The majority recognizes that an uncontrollable addiction to alcohol may not prevent the person so addicted from undertaking gainful activity. See supra p. 559. A fortiori one who can control the use of alcohol is not for that reason alone prevented from undertaking gainful activity. The issue in both instances is whether the seeker of disability benefits can or cannot undertake gainful activity. Controllability or no is certainly relevant to this issue. Uncontrollable addiction is strong evidence of inability to undertake gainful activity. It is not, however, conclusive evidence. Moreover, as the majority points out, a condition precedent to establishing disability by rea *562 son of alcoholism is a showing that it is uncontrollable. See supra p. 560.

In this case the Administrative Law Judge found that Cooper had established neither that his alcoholism was uncontrollable nor that he was unable to undertake gainful activity. The latter finding is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, I would affirm the judgment below.

815 F.2d 557 17 Soc.Sec.Rep.Ser. 312, Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 17,353 James COOPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, * Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant- Appellee. No. 85-6159. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Feb. 3, 1987. Decided April 21, 1987. Nancy E. Wever, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellee. Stephen Gorey, San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Before SNEED, FARRIS and NOONAN, Circuit Judges. FARRIS, Circuit Judge: INTRODUCTION 1 James Cooper seeks disability benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act because of chronic alcoholism. An administrative law judge for the Department of Health and Human Services denied benefits. The ALJ found that Cooper's condition did not prevent him from undertaking gainful activity. The Appeals Council declined to rehear Cooper's claim, so the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Under section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405 (g), Cooper appealed to the district court, which granted summary judgment to the…