A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antthe part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and c o n d itio n s o f

1 0 th C ir . R . 3 6 .3 . T he H on orabl e W esl eyE . B row n, S eniorD i stri ctJudg e, D i stri ctof K ansas, ** s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### N ove m b e r9,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT R O B I N M . M I L L E R , on behal f of M eli ssa N . T h o m p so n , a m ino r, P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. J O A NN E B. BA RN HA RT, C o m m iss io n e r o f

th e S o c ial S e c u rity A dm i ni s tr at i on, D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 5083 ( D . C . N o . 0 4 - C V - 7 7 7 - F H M) (N .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e O’ BR I EN and BROR BY , C i r cui tJ udges , and B R O WN , D i s tr i ctJ udge. **

I n thi s Soci al Secur i tycas e, t he admi ni s tr at i ve l aw j udge ( A L J ) det erm i ned thatthe mi nordaught erof R obi n M i l l ers uffe r s fr om t he s ever e i m pai r m ent s of-2-

att ent i on defi ci t/hyper act i vi tydi s or der , a ce ntr al audi t orypr oces s i ng di s or der ( C A PD ) , and oppos i t i onal / defi antdi s or der . E val uat i ng t he ca s e underthe C om m i s s i oner ’ s chi l dhood di s abi l i tys t andar ds , the A L J det erm i ned that M s . T hom ps on’ s i m pai r m ent s di d notm eet , m edi cal l yequal , orfunct i onal l yequal a l i s t ed i m pai r m ent , and he de ni ed M s . T hom ps on’ s cl ai m forSuppl ement al S ec u ri tyInc o m e b en efit s. T h e A p p ea ls C o u n cil d en ied re v iew , m ak ing the A L J’s deci s i on the C om m i s s i oner ’ s fi nal deci s i on. T he di s tr i ctcour taff i r m ed, and M r s . M i l l erappea l ed on M s . T hom ps on’ s behal f. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under42 U. S . C. § 4 0 5 ( g ) a n d 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d we a ffi r m. Standard of

R eview T he s t andar d of r evi ew i n Soci al Secur i tycas es i s ( 1) w hethers ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the C om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on; and ( 2) w hethert he dec i s i on c o m p o rt s w ith re le v a n t le g a l s ta n d a rd s . See McNam arv. Apf el , 172 F. 3d 764, 766 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). S u b sta n tial e v id e n c e is “ ‘su c h re lev a n t ev id e n c e a s a re a so n a b le m i nd m i ghtacc eptas adequa t e t o s uppor ta conc l us i on. ’ ” Wi nf r ey v . C hat er , 92 F. 3d 1017, 1019 ( 10th C i r . 1996) ( quot i ng R i char ds on v. P er al es , 402 U . S. 389, 4 0 1 ( 1 9 7 1 ) ) . “ [ B] e c a u s e o u rr e v i e w i s b a s e d o n t h e r e c o r d t a k e n a s a wh o l e , we w i l l m et i cul ous l yexami ne the r ecor d i n or dert o det erm i ne i f the evi dence su p p o rtin g th e a g e n c y ’s d e c isio n is s u b sta n tial, tak in g in to a c c o u n t w h a tev e r in the r ecor d fai r l ydetr act s fr om i t s w ei ght . ” Ham l i n v. B arnh art , 365 F. 3d 1208, 1214 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . “W e maynei therr ew ei gh the-3-

evi dence nors ubs t i tut e ourdi s cr et i on forthatof the [Com m i s s i oner ] . ” Kel l ey v . C hat er , 6 2 F .3 d 3 3 5 , 3 3 7 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). A n a lys is In c h ild re n ’s d isa b ili tyc a se s, th e A L J fo llo w s a th re e -ste p p ro c e ss in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r th e c h ild m e e ts th e c riter ia fo r a q u a lific a tio n o f d isa b ili ty : ( 1) w hetherthe chi l d i s engage d i n s ubs t ant i al gai nful act i vi ty ; ( 2) w hetherthe chi l d has an i m pai r m entorcombi nat i on of i m pai r m ent s thati s orar e s ever e; and (3 ) w h e th e r th e c h ild ’s im p a irm e n t(s) m e e ts, m e d ica llye q u a ls, o r f u n c tio n a lly e q u a ls th e lis tin g s in 2 0 C .F .R ., P a rt 4 0 4 , S u b p a rt P , A p p e n d ix 1 . See 2 0 C. F . R. § 416. 924( a) ( 2004) . M r s . M i l l erar gues thatthe A L J err ed i n hi s det erm i nat i ons a tS t e p s 2 a n d 3 a n d i n e v a l u a t i n g h e rc r e d i b i l i ty. I. M r s . M i l l erfi r s tcont ends thatthe A L J err ed atSt ep 2 bynotas s es s i ng b o rd e rl in e in te lle c tu a l f u n c tio n in g a s o n e o f

M s . T h o m p s o n ’s s e v e re im p a ir m e n ts . She poi nt s t o s ever al I Q t es ts cor es i n the 70s and l ow 80s and ar gues thats uch s cor es , w i thi n the bor der l i ne r ange, r equi r e the A L J t o fi nd a s ever e i m pai r m ent a s a m a tte r o f

la w . See Cocker ham v. Sul l i van , 8 9 5 F . 2 d 4 9 2 , 4 9 6 (8th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). C ocke r ham , h o w e v e r, ad d re ss e d “ [ a ] c laim a n t w h o se a lleg e d im p a irm e n t is an I Q of 70- 79 i ncl us i ve. ” Id. Som e of M s . T hom ps on’ s s cor es ar e w i thi n that r ange, butther e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the r ecor d thatheri nt el l i gence i s not n e c e s s a ri ly b o rd e rl in e , b u t lo w a v e ra g e . See A pl t . A pp. V ol . 2 at316 ( s t at i ng-4-

Ful l - Scal e I Q of 81 on the W I SC - I I I put s M s . T hom ps on i n the “Low A ver age r ange of i nt el l ectual abi l i ty ”) ; 303 ( I ow a Test s of B as i c Ski l l s R es ul t s s how i ng herper form ance i n m anycat egor i es w as w i thi n the ave r age r ange of the nat i onal per cent i l e r anks ) ; 184 ( s t at i ng s he has “a l ow aver age I Q of 81”) ; 273 ( r eport i ng IQ sco re o f 9 2 o n the T est o f N o n -V erb al Intell igen ce an d n o ti n g the W IS C -II I r es ul t s m ayhave be en affec t ed byherC A PD ) . Fur ther , none of the t es t s w as t aken w i thi n tw o y ear s befor e the r el evantper i od, s o none i s val i d underthe re g u la tio n s . See 20 C . F. R . , Pt . 404, Subpt . P, A pp. 1, § 112. 00D 10 ( 2004) ( s t at i ng thatr es ul t s of I Q t es t s admi ni s t er ed betw een a ges 7 and 16 ar e val i d for tw o y ear s w hen t es t ed I Q i s above 40) . I ti s notthi s cour t ’ s t as k t o r ew ei gh the ev iden ce to p refer p arti cu lar sco res a n d testresu lt s o v er o thers, bu t on lyto en su re th a t th e A L J ’s d e c is io n fin d s s u p p o rt in th e e v id e n c e . See Kel l ey , 62 F. 3d at337; G len n v . Sh a la la , 2 1 F .3 d 9 8 3 , 9 8 7 -8 8 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ). W e fin d n o re v e rsib le err ori n the A L J ’ s fai l ur e t o as s es s bor der l i ne i nt el l i gence as one of M s . T h o m p s o n ’s s e v e re im p a ir m e n ts . II. M rs. M ill e r n e x t ar g u e s th a t th e A L J e rre d a t S tep 3 b yn o t sp e c ifica lly i dent i fy i ng t he l i s t ed i m pai r m ent s thathe cons i der ed and byunderr at i ng M s . T h o m p s o n ’s lim ita tio n s in th e d o m a in o f a c q u ir in g a n d u s in g in fo rm a tio n . See 20 C . F. R . § 416. 926a( b) ( 1) ( 2004) ( expl ai ni ng thatthe C om m i s s i onerhas-5-

cl as s i fi ed ac t i vi t i es i nt o s i x dom ai ns forpurpos es of eva l uat i ng funct i onal eq u ivalen ce ). A. A s th e d istric t co u rt h e ld , the re g u latio n s d o n o t re q u ire th e A L J to re fe r to sp e c ific liste d im p a irm e n ts in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a n im p a irm e n t f u n c tio n a lly e q u a ls th e listin g s, b u t ra th e r to e v a lu a te th e c h ild ’s f u n c tio n in g in e a c h o f

six d o m a in s . See i d. § 4 1 6 .9 2 6 a (d ) (2 0 0 4 ). T h is re g u latio n , h o w e v e r, ad d re ss e s o n ly the thi r d of the eva l uat i ons an A L J undert akes atSt ep 3; befor e det erm i ni ng w h e th e r a n im p a irm e n t f un ct i on all

y equ als a l i s t i ng, the A L J m us tdet erm i ne the im p a irm e n t d o e s n o t m eeto r m e d ica lly e q u a l a lis tin g . See i d. § 416. 924( a) (20 0 4 ). A rgu ab ly , the A L J erred in fail ing to ide n ti fysp ec ifi c li sti n g s w ith reg ard to th e s e tw o in itia l in q u ir ie s . See i d. § 4 1 6 .9 2 6 (a ) (2 0 0 4 ) (s tatin g th a t, i n det erm i ni ng m edi cal equi val ence , the C om m i s s i onercompar es the medi cal evi dence t o “the corr es pondi ng m edi cal cr i t er i a s how n foranyl i s t ed im p airm en t”). I n C l i f t on v. C hat er , 7 9 F . 3 d 1 0 0 7 , 1 0 0 9 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ), this co u rt det erm i ned thata dec i s i on w as “bey ond m eani ngful j udi ci al r evi ew ” w her e “the A L J di d notdi s cus s t he evi dence orhi s r eas ons fordet erm i ni ng t hatappel l antw as notdi s abl ed ats t ep thr ee, oreven i dent i fythe r el evantL i s t i ng orL i s t i ngs ; he m er el ys t at ed a s um m aryconcl us i on t hatappel l ant ’ s i m pai r m ent s di d notm eetor equal anyL i s t ed I m pai r m ent . ” I n F ischer- R oss v. B arnh art , 431 F. 3d 729, 730-6-

( 10th C i r . 2005) , how ever , “[w ] e r ej ect [ed] a cons truct i on of C l i f t on that , bas ed on a r eadi ng of the A L J ’ s deci s i on as a w hol e, w oul d l ead t o unw arr ant ed r emands ne edl es s l ypr ol ongi ng admi ni s tr at i ve pr ocee di ngs . ” W e cont i nued, “[w ] her e an A L J pr ovi des det ai l ed fi ndi ngs , thor oughl yr evi ew ed and uphe l d by th e d istric t co u rt, th a t co n firm rejec tio n o f th e listin g s in a m a n n e r re a d ily r evi ew abl e, r equi r i ng r ever s al w oul d ext end C l i f t on bey ond i t s ow n r at i onal e. ” Id. a t 7 3 4 . H e re , alth o u g h th e A L J d id n o t id e n tifyth e sp e c ific listin g s, h is anal y s i s cont ai ned det ai l ed di s cus s i on of the r ecor d. M r s . M i l l eral l eges thatthe A L J d i d n o td i s c u s s M s . T h o m p s o n ’ s i n a t t e n t i o n , i m p u l s i v e n e s s , o rh yp e r a c t i v i t y, b u t th e A L J ’s d e c is io n d o e s re fle c t c o n s id e ra tio n o f s u c h fa c to rs . See, e. g. , A p lt. A p p . V o l. 2 a t 1 8 (d isc u ss in g a lleg e d lyim p u lsiv e b e h a v io r a n d sc h o o l re p o rts r egar di ng herneed forr edi r ect i on and t endenc yt o rus h t o compl et e t as ks ) ; 19 ( not i ng r eportt hats he w oul d begi n w or ki ng w i thoutunder s t andi ng di r ect i ons ) ; 20 ( not i ng t eac her s ’ r eportof herbehavi orats chool ) ; 25 ( as s es s i ng M s . T hom ps on w ith “m ark ed ” li m it ati o n s in the d o m ain o f a tt en d ing an d co m p let ing task s). In contr as tt o C l i

f t on , the A L J th o ro u g h lyre v iew e d th e re c o rd e v id e n c e in h is d ec isi o n . W e find n o rev ersible e rror. B. I f an A L J fi nds thata cl ai m anthas m arked l i m i t at i ons i n atl eas ttw o of the six d o m ains , o r ex tr em e li m it ati o n s in a n yo f th e d o m ains , then the c lai m an t’ s im p a ir m e n t( s ) f

u n c tio n a lly e q u a l( s ) t h e lis tin g s . 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 1 6 .9 2 6 a (d ) ( 2 0 0 4 ).-7-

T he A L J det erm i ned thatM s . T hom ps on has m arked l i m i t at i ons i n the domai n of a tten d in g a n d c o m p letin g tas k s, b u t th a t sh e h a s le ss th a n m a rk e d lim itatio n s in th e d o m a in s o f

a c q u irin g a n d u sin g in fo rm a tio n a n d in ter a c tin g a n d re latin g w ith other s . M r s . M i l l ercont ends thatthe A L J err ed i n fi ndi ng l es s than mar ked l i m i t at i on s i n the dom ai n o f acq uir i ng and usi ng i nfo rm at i on , so t hat M s. T hom ps on m us tbe cons i der ed di s abl ed under§ 416. 926a( d) byvi r tue of ha vi ng m a rk e d lim ita tio n s in a t le a s t tw o d o m a in s . A “ m a rk e d ” lim itatio n o c c u rs w h e n a n im p a irm e n t(s) “ in ter fe re s s e rio u sly w ith [ th e c laim a n t’s] a b ili tyto in d e p e n d e n tlyin iti a te, s u sta in , o r c o m p lete act i vi t i es . ” Id. § 4 16 . 92 6a(e) (2) (i ) ( 20 04 ). “‘M arked’ l i m i t at i on al so m eans a l i m i t at i on t hati s ‘ m or e than moder at e’ but‘ l es s than extr eme. ’ ” Id. I n the d o m a in o f

a c q u irin g a n d u sin g in fo rm a tio n , the C o m m iss io n e r c o n sid e rs h o w w e ll the cl ai m antl earns i nform at i on and how w el l the cl ai m antus es the i nform at i on le a rn e d . Id. § 4 1 6 .9 2 6 a (g ). M r s . M i l l erpoi nt s t o M s . T hom ps on’ s aca demi c di ffi cul t i es and the s ever al acc om m odat i ons pr ovi ded t o herats chool as pr oof thats he has m arked l i m i t at i ons i n acqui r i ng i nform at i on. T he r ecor d does s uppor tthe i nfer ence that M s. T h o m p so n ’s im p a irm e n ts a ffe c t h e r a b ili tyto lea rn , an d th a t sh e stru g g les in so m e su bjec ts, p a rticu lar lym a th e m a tics . T h e re c o rd d o e s n o t, ho w e v e r, co m p e l a fi ndi ng thatherl i m i t at i ons ar e nec es s ar i l y“mar ked” r atherthan “moder at e. ” T her e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence thatM s . T hom ps on can l earn and ca n us e the-8-

i nform at i on s he has l earned. See, e. g. , A pl t . A pp. V ol . 2 at222 ( A pr i l 1999 exam i nati on st at i ng M s. T ho m pson ’s “acad em i c achievem ent s cores s ug gest bel ow aver age s ki l l s i n m athemat i cs r eas oni ng and appl i cat i ons and mat hemat i cs conce pt s . O therw i s e, hers cor es ar e w i thi n nor m al l i m i t s forherage. ”) ; 325- 26 ( O ct ober2002 not at i on thatM s . T hom ps on i s abl e t o do the s ame t hi ngs as other s tudent s i n hercl as s , and the pr obabl e ca us e of fai l ur e t o achi eve a texpec t ed l evel w as herchoi ce t o negl ectherw or k) ; 328- 29 ( N ovember2002 exami nat i on ind icati n g sh e k n ew b asic fac ts, h ad m il d lyim p aired p erfo rm an ce w ith sh o rt -t erm m e m o ry , an d k n e w a b stra c tio n s); s e e a ls o id . at248 ( pr ogr es s r eports how i ng 4 B s an d 2 C s, an d n o ti n g that h er g rad es h ad d ec li n ed sli g h tl y ); 2 4 4 (rep o rtca rd sh o w ing 1 B , 3 C s, an d 2 D s, an d p rom o ti o n to se v en th g rad e); 23 6 (rep o rtca rd sh o w ing 1 A -, 1 B , 1 B -, 1 C , an d 1 D an d p rom o ti o n to eig h th g rad e); 13 2 (rep o rt ca rd sh o w ing g rad es w ere g en era ll yA , B , C , an d p assin g ); 1 2 8 (pro g ress rep o rt s h o w in g 2 B s , 3 C s , a n d 1 F , a n d n o tin g th a t s h e is c a p a b le o f d o in g b e tte r w o rk ). I n addi t i on, thr ee c ons ul t i ng s our ces r at ed herw i th “l es s than mar ked” l i m i t at i ons in th is d o m a in . Id. at334, 341, 348. G i ven the pr es ence of s ubs t ant i al evi dence t o s uppor tt he A L J ’ s det erm i nat i on, w e w i l l notr ever s e, even though w e mi ght hav e m ade a d i fferentfi nd i ng w ere w e t he fa ct fi nd ers . See White v. B arnh art , 2 8 7 F .3 d 9 0 3 , 9 0 8 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ).-9- III . Fi nal l y , M r s . M i l l ercompl ai ns thatthe A L J di s count ed the cr edi bi l i tyof hert es t i m ony . T he A L J det erm i ned thatM r s . M i l l er ’ s t es t i m onyatthe hea r i ng co n tr ad ict ed the to tal ityo f th e e v iden ce w ith reg ard s to M s. T h o m p so n ’s im p a ir m e n ts .

“ C re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n s a re p e c u liarlyth e p ro v in c e o f th e fin d e r o f

fa c t, and w e w i l l notups ets uch det erm i nat i ons w hen s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . ” Kepl erv. C hat er , 68 F. 3d 387, 391 ( 10th C i r . 1995) ( quot at i on o m itt e d ). B u t “fin d in g s a s to c re d ib ili tysh o u ld b e c lo se lya n d a ffirm a tiv e ly lin k e d to s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e a n d n o t ju s t a c o n c lu s io n in th e g u is e o f fin d in g s .” Id. (a lte ra tio n a n d q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). H er e, the A L J di s cus s ed t es t i m onythatw as notcorr obor at ed byother evi dence i n the r ecor d, i dent i fy i ng part i cul arexampl es , and s t at ed that M rs. M ill e r h a d m a d e c o n tra d icto rysta tem e n ts a b o u t M s. T h o m p so n ’s a b ili tyto getal ong w i th fr i ends and fa m i l y . M r s . M i l l erdi s put es the A L J ’ s vi ew of the ev iden ce an d reli es o n ev iden ce to the co n tr ary , b u t aga in, i t i s n o t th is co u rt ’s tas k to re w e ig h th e e v id e n c e . A s th is c o u rt sta ted in a n o th e r c a se : A ft erexami ni ng the r ecor d as a w hol e, w e ar e per s uaded thatthe A L J’s c re d ib ili tyfin d in g s a re c lo se lya n d a ffirm a tiv e lylin k e d to s ubs t ant i al evi dence . Pl ai nt i ff’ s ar gum entt o the contr arycons t i tut es an i nvi t at i on t o thi s courtt o engage i n an i m perm i s s i bl e r ew ei ghi ng of the evi dence and t o s ubs t i tut e ourj udgm entforthatof the C o m m is s io n e r, a n in v ita tio n w e m u s t d e c lin e .-10-

Hackettv. B arnh art , 3 9 5 F . 3 d 1 1 6 8 , 1 1 7 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). Conclusion T h e j u d g me n to f

th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

We s l e yE . Br o wn D i s tr i ctJ udge