Jenkins v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

MEMORANDUM

Richard Jenkins appeals from the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner’s denial of his applications for Social Security disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income payments. Jenkins argues that the ALJ’s determination that substance abuse was material to his disability was not supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ gave insufficient weight to the opinion of his treating physician, Dr. Mihara. Reviewing de novo, we affirm.

Jenkins “bears the burden of proving that [substance abuse] is not a contributing factor material to his disability.” Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 748 (9th Cir.2007). The ALJ properly conducted the five-step inquiry first without separating out the impact of Jenkins’s drug addiction. See Bustamante v. Massanari, 262 F.3d 949, 955 (9th Cir.2001). After finding that Jenkins was disabled, the ALJ conducted the inquiry again, this time evaluating whether Jenkins would still be disabled absent substance abuse. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1535 (b). As the district court explained, Jenkins did not establish that his physical impairments rendered him disabled absent substance abuse, and “[a]t best, the evidence is…