2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-29-2004 

# O ' D onnel l v

. C omm S o c i al S ec ur ity P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-4649

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" O ' D onne l l v

. C omm S oc i al S e c ur it y " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 180. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/180NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

____________ No. 03-4649

____________ VIRGINI A A. O’DONNELL

v. COMM ISSI ONER SOCIAL SECURITY

VIRGINIA O’DON NELL , as guar dian o f K eiran W illiam O ’Do nnell, Appellant

____________ On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt for the M iddle D istrict of P enns ylvania (D.C. No. 02-cv- 01058) District Judge: H onorab le James F . McC lure, Jr.

____________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

October 28, 2004 Be for e: S CIR ICA , Chief Judge , FIS HE R a nd G RE EN BE RG , Circuit Judges
. (Fil ed October 29, 2004 )

____________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

____________ FIS HE R, Circuit

Judge
.2

Virgini a O’Donnell, on be half of her minor son, Kieran (“Appel lants ”), s eeks review of the dist

rict court’ s decis ion (dated November 14, 2003), which adopted a magistr ate j udge’s re commendation (dated August 5, 2003) , and affirmed the deci sion of the C om missio ner o f So cial Se curity to de ny the ch ild’s claim for su pplem ental se curity in come (SS I) as a di sabl ed c hi ldund erTitle XVI of th e So ci al Sec ur ity Act , 4 2 U. S. C. §§1 381 -1 383 (d ). We af fi rm. We apply the same s tandard of review a s the district court, and review the AL J’s decisi on to dete rmine whether it i s based on subs tanti al evi dence. Burnett v . Co mm issio ner , 220 F.3d 112, 118 ( 3d Cir. 2000) . “Subst antial evide nce” has been defin ed as “mo re than a me re scin tilla,” and as “su ch rele vant e viden ce as a reaso nable min d m igh t acc ept a s ad equ ate” to su ppo rt a co nclu sion
. Id. (internal citations omitted). The ALJ, following t

he appli cable three-s tep sequent ial e valuation set

forth at 20 C.F.R. §416. 924(a), determi ned firs t, t hat thechild ha d not engaged i n substant ial gainful activity and seco nd, tha t he ha d a co mb ination of se vere m edica l impa irmen ts (nam ely asthma, a seizu re disorder an d deve lopmen tal delays). ALJ dec ision at 2. At the third step, however, theALJ concluded that the combination of impai rments, while severe, was not severe enough to (a ) meet or medi call y equalany of t he lis ted impai rments, or (b) cau se fu nction al limitatio ns tha t equa led an y listed imp airme nts ba sed o n the s ix fun ction al do ma ins u sed to as sess fun ction al eq uiv alen ce. Id. at 3, 4. In maki ng the determi nation a s to medical equivalence, the ALJ determined that the medicalevidence of3

reco rd d id n ot d ocu me nt th e sp ecif ic fin din gs re qui red for any list ed im pair me nt. Id. at 3. In asses sing functional e quivale nce, the ALJ determined t hat thechild di d not exhibi t an “extre me” limit ation i n any of t he six domains , a “marked” limit ation in four of the domains (at

tending to and completi ng tasks; inter acti ng and relating wit h others , moving about and manipul ating obj ects, and abil ity to carefor onesel f), or

any l imit ation i n the
rema ining tw o do main s (acq uiring a nd u sing in form ation, an d hea lth and physical w ellbein g). Id. at 4. Accordingly , theALJ concluded the chi ld was not di sabled under the Soc ial Sec urity Act a nd th e A ppea ls Co uncil d enied review . As n oted, th e district c ourt, on recommendation of

a magistr ate j udge, affirmed the ALJ’s deci sion. Before thi s Court, Appellant s contend ( 1) the di stri ct court erred i n concludi ng the ALJ had fullyexplai ned his r easoning as to why the chil d’s impai rments di d not meet or medicall y equalthe ast

hma or seizure lis tings for chil dren and adul ts when the ALJ fai led to set forth t he specif ic li sti ngs conside red; ( 2) the di stri ct court exceeded it s scope of review when it

determi ned the chi ld did not meet the as thma or sei zure li sti ngs for ei ther an adult or a chil d; and (3) the dis tri ct court erred i n concludi ng the ALJ’s deci sion on functi onal equi valence was bas ed on substantialevidence where t he ALJ relie d on the opinions of two non-examini ng physi cians who, i n opining t hat thechild di d not functi onally

equal anylis tings , did not have the benefi t of a Comprehensi ve Evaluati on Repo rt prepared by the Interm ediate Un it of the child’s scho ol district (“IU Rep ort”).1 The district c ourt concluded that “[t]helack of subs equent attacks [of a sthma] disqual ifie s [the chi ld] fr om meeting List ing 3.03 for

adults or Listing 103.03 for childre n, as b oth req uire m ultiple atta cks.” O rder at 6 . Wh ile Ap pellan t correc tly points 4 As to the first a ssignment of error , we agree wit

h the dis tri ct court

(and the mag istrate jud ge w hose repo rt wa s ado pted) th at the A LJ su fficien tly explaine d his reasoni ng so as not to run afoul of t his Court ’s requirement that an ALJ decis ion be explai ned in a manner s uffici ent to e nsure “meani ngful judi cialreview.” Bur nett, 220 F.3d at 119. In Bur nett , the AL J had set fo rth only a conclusion . Here, w e have m ore than that. Alt

hough we would encourage ALJs to speci fical lyidenti fy t he lis ted impairment s under consi derati on, we are abl e to dis cern what they were bas ed on the AL J’s disc ussion of the evide nce, a nd re lated c onclu sion th at the c om bined impa irmen ts were not severe enough to “meet or medical lyequal the requirements of any lis ted impairme nt.” AL J decision, at 3 (em phasis add ed). As to the sec ond assign men t of erro r, we d o no t believ e the d istrict cou rt actua lly made any fact

ual fi ndings i n violat

ion of it s roleunder the Soci al Securi tyAct. As noted, the ALJ determined that the child did not have an impairment that meets or exceeds any lis ted impai rments. In respons e to Appell ants’ concern that theALJ looked onlyto the adult listings, the district court merely rearranged the AL J’s factual finding s in an effo rt to better explain why the ALJ concluded that the chi ldrens ’ li sti ngs were not met. Order at 6. Although the di stri ct court used the phr ase “thecourt fi nds,” id. at 6, we do not understand it to have made independent factual findings. 1out that

Listi ngs 3.03A (for a dult as thma) and 103. 03A (for chil dren asthma) do not requ ire mu ltiple attack s, the dis trict cou rt’s statem ent is at m ost ha rmles s error, a s this record wo uld n ot sup port a d eterm ination that the child m et either o f thos e spe cific listings. 5 As to the third a ssignme nt of error, w e do no t agree w ith App ellants that the AL J’s reli ance upon reports fr om two non-examining phy sici ans who themselves did not have the benefi t of theUI Report, robs the ALJ’s dec isi on of a sound basi s. Regardl ess of the physicians’ access to the IU Repo rt, it i s clear that the A LJ con sidered the IU Repo rt’s content s (which addr essed the chil d’s devel opmental del ays ) alongs ide al l other evidence of r eco rd in asse ssin g th e fu nctio nal d om ains
. See ALJ de ci si on, at 4- 5. Tha t, we believ e, wa s suff icient co nside ration o f the IU Rep ort. In addition to reviewing Appell ants’ specifi c assi gnments of error, we have review ed the adm inistrative record in its entire ty and co nclud e that th e A LJ’s d ecision to deny be nefits is b ased on su bstan tial evide nce, a nd th at the d istrict cou rt correc tly affirmed.