T he H on or a bl e Edw a r d R. K orman, Se ni orU ni t e d St a t e s D i s tr i c tCourtJ ud ge f or * the East ern D i s tr i ctof

N ew Y ork, s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on. 09 - 34 21 - cv V e lla v . C o m m iss io n e r o f S o c ia l S e c u rity

UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER RU L I NG S B Y S UMM AR Y OR DE R DO N OT HA VE P RE CE DE NT I AL E F F E CT . CI TAT I ON TO A S UM M ARY ORD ER FI LED ON OR AF TER J ANU ARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P ERM I TTED AND I S GO VERN ED BY FE DERA L RULE OF AP PE LLATE PROCED URE 3 2 . 1 AND TH I S COU RT’ S LOCA L RULE 3 2 . 1 . W HEN CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORD ER I N A DO CUM ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S CO U R T, A P ARTY M US T CI TE E I T HE R T HE F E DE RA L A P P E ND I X OR A N E L E CT RO NI C DAT ABA S E ( W I T H T HE N OT AT I ON “ S UM M ARY ORD ER” ) . A P ARTY C I TI NG A S UM M ARY ORDER M US T S ERVE A COP Y OF I T ON ANY P A R T Y N O T R E P R E S E N T E D B Y C O U N S E L . A ta s t at ed t erm of the U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s forthe Second Ci r cui t , hel d at the D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C our thous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n the C i ty of N ew Y ork, on the 29 day of Sept ember, tw o thous and t en. th P R E S E N T : P IE R R E N . L E V A L ,

GE RA RD E . L YNC H,

C i r cui tJudges , E DW AR D R . KOR M AN,

D is tr i ct Judge. *

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- NI CH OL AS VE L L A, P lai nt i f f

-Appel lant , v. N o. 09- 3421- cv CO M M I S S I ONE R O F S OC I AL S E CU RI T Y, D ef endant

-Appel l ee.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- FO R A PPE L L A N T : N O A H A . K I N I G ST E I N , N ew Y ork, N ew Y ork. FO R A PPE L L E E : L E SL I E A . R A M I R E Z - FI SH E R , A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A tt o rne y (B en

jam in H . T o rran ce , o n the b ri ef), f orPr eet B har ar a, U ni t ed St at es A t t orney f orthe Southern D i s tr i ctof N e w Y o rk , N e w Y o rk , N e w Y o rk .2

A ppeal f r om the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tf orthe Southern D i s tr i ctof N ew Y o rk (A n d re w J . P e c k , Magis tr at e Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, A N D D E C R E E D th a t th e ju d g m e n t o f t h e d is tr ic t c o u rtis A F F IR M E D . A ppel l antN i chol as V el l a appe al s f r om a j udgm entof

the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C o u rtfo r t h e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f N e w Y o rk (P e c k , M .J .) gr ant i ng A ppel l ee’ s m ot i on f or ju d g m e n t o n th e p lea d in g s a n d d ism iss in g V e lla’s c laim fo r in su ra n c e b e n e fits p u rsu a n t to the Soci al Secur i ty A ct , 42 U . S. C . § 405( g) . W e as s um e the part i es ’ f ami l i ar i ty w i th the fact s, proceed i ng s bel ow , and speci fi cat i on of appe l l at e i ssues and h old as f oll ow s. W her e a di s tr i ctcourtent er s j udgm enton the pl eadi ngs af f i rm i ng the C om m i s s i onerof

Soci al Secur i ty’ s deni al of an appl i cat i on f

ordi s abi l i ty i ns ur ance benef i t s , “w e f ocus on the admi ni s tr at i ve rul i ng r atherthan the di s tr i ctcourt ' s opi ni on. ” M o ra n v . A s tru e , 5 6 9 F .3 d 1 0 8 , 1 1 2 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). “[ W ] e r evi ew the admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d de novo t o det erm i ne w hetherther e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t i ng the C om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on and w hetherthe C om m i s s i onerappl i ed the corr ectl egal s t andar d. ” Zabal a v. A s true, 595 F. 3d 402, 408 ( 2d C i r . 2010) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o 42 U . S. C . § 405( g) ( “The f i ndi ngs of

the C o m m iss io n e r o f S o c ial S e c u rity a s to a n y fa c t, i f su p p o rte d b y su b sta n tial e v id e n c e , sh a ll be conc l us i ve . . . . ”) . “Subs t ant i al evi dence m eans m or e than a mer e s ci nt i l l a. I tm eans 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 in d m ig h t ac c e p t as a d e q u a te to su p p o rt a co n clus ion . ” M o ran , 5 6 9 F . 3 d at 11 2 (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). T he di s tr i ctcourtpr oper l y det erm i ned thats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t ed the A L J’s fin d in g th a t V e lla fa iled to p ro v e th a t h e su ffe re d fro m a m e d ica lly d e ter m in a b le3

d isa b ili ty b e fo re tu rn in g tw e n ty -tw o , w h ich h e h a d to p ro v e in o rd e r to p re v a il o n h is c la im fo r c h ild ’s in s u ra n c e b e n e fi ts . S e e 4 2 U .S .C . § 4 0 2 (d )( 1 )( G ); 2 0 C .F .R . § 404. 350( a) ( 5) . V el l a cl ai m s t o have s uf f er ed f r om ps ychi atr i c i m pai rm ent s , i ncl udi ng schi zop hreni a, si nce ag e t en. H e says he w as hospit al i zed repeatedl y for these i mpa i rme n t s p r i o rt o a g e twen ty - two. But , a s th e d i s tr i c tc o u r tc o rr e c t l y ru l e d , th e ALJ properl y rel i ed o n the m edical recor ds that w ere i n ev i den ce i n rej ect i ng tho se cont ent i ons . N o m edi cal r ecor ds s how thatV el l a had be en hos pi t al i zed, di agnos ed, or treat ed for any p sychiatri c i m pairm ent pr i or t o ag e tw enty- tw o. Indeed , V el l a’s earl i est m edi cal r ecor d i n the r ecor d dat es back t o w hen he w as tw enty- tw o, and s t at es thatatthat t i m e V el l a had “ no hi s t ory of ps ychi atr i c hos pi t al i zat i on. ” N ordo any of hi s l at erm edi cal r ecor ds i ndi cat e thathe had be en di agnos ed w i th ortr eat ed f orany ment al i m pai rm ent pr i ort o age tw enty- tw o. M or eover , i ti s w or th not i ng thatw hen V el l a appl i ed f or di s abi l i ty benef

i t s tw i ce i n 1975 and once i n 1978, the Soci al Secur i ty A dm i ni s tr at i on f ound hi m notdi s abl ed ea ch t i m e. A bs entobj ect i ve medi cal evi dence , V el l a r el i ed on hi s ow n t es t i m ony t o pr ove that h e su ffe re d fro m a m e d ica lly d e ter m in a b le im p a irm e n t b e fo re tu rn in g tw e n ty -tw o . H is tes tim o n y , h o w e v e r, d id n o t re q u ire th e A L J to fin d th e e x iste n c e o f a n im p a irm e n t, beca us e “[ a] n i ndvi dual ’ s s t at ementas t o pai n orothers ym pt om s s hal l notal one be concl us i ve evi dence of

di s abl i ty . . . ther e mustbe medi cal s i gns and f i ndi ngs , es t abl i s hed by m edi cal l y acc ept abl e cl i ni cal orl abor at ory di agnos t i c t echni ques , w hi ch s how the e x is te n c e o f a m e d ic a l im p a ir m e n t.” 4 2 U .S .C . § 4 2 3 (d )( 5 )( A ); s e e a ls o 2 0 C .F .R . § 40 4. 15 29 (a) (“[ S ] t at em ents abo ut your pain or other sym ptom s w i l l no tal on e est abli sh4

thatyou ar e di s abl ed; ther e mustbe medi cal s i gns and l abor at ory f i ndi ngs w hi ch s how thatyou have a m edi cal i m pai rm ent ( s ) w hi ch coul d r eas onabl y be expe ct ed t o pr oduce the p a in o r o th e r sy m p to m s a lleg e d . . . . ” ). H e re , the m e d ica l re c o rd d o e s n o t su p p o rt h is te s tim o n y th a t h e s u ff

e re d a p s y c h ia tr ic im p a ir m e n t b e fo re tu rn in g tw e n ty -t w o . M or eover , por t i ons of

V el l a’ s ow n t es t i m ony contr adi ctthatcl ai m . Fori ns t ance , he stat ed , “I h av e b ee n in the rap y sinc e, yo u k n o w , li k e 2 3 y ea rs old , b u t befo re tha t I d idn ’t w antt o go . . . . , ” and “ [ a] f t erthe age of

22, l i ke 23 yea r s ol d, I s t art ed bec om i ng, you k n o w , h o sp it ali ze d q u it e freq u en tl y . ” T h e A L J an d d istri ct co u rtco n side red V ell a’s t es t i m ony and the di s tr i ctcourtcorr ect l y det erm i ned thatthe t es t i m ony di d notr equi r e the A L J t o f i nd thatV el l a s uf

f er ed a medi cal l y det erm i nabl e i m pai rm entpr i ort o age 22. V ell a a lso reli ed o n letters his b roth er a n d a friend su b m itted to the A L J. V ell a’s br other ’ s l ett ers t at es thatV el l a had be en hos pi t al i zed “ atl eas t35 t i m es , ” thatatage t en h is p a re n ts p u t h im in a sp e c ial s c h o o l b e c a u se “ h e w a s a v e ry tro u b led a n d p ro b lem a tic youngs t er , ” and thatatage e l even “ m y par ent s br oughthi m t o St . V i ncent ’ s H os pi t al f or p sy c h iatric tre a tm e n t an d th e ra p y . H e h a s b e e n o n a l[l ] so rts o f p sy c h o tic m e d ica tio n s h is w hol e l i f e, and neve rhas t aken a nyone’ s advi ce. ” The f r i end’ s l ett ers t at es that“[ a] tan e a rly a g e [V e lla] w a s d o in g d ru g s a n d h a s b e e n h o sp italiz e d a t lea st 3 5 tim e s,” b u t it f ai l ed t o i ndi cat e w hen thos e hos pi t al i zat i ons occurr ed. N ei therl ett eri ncl uded any m edi cal r ecor ds orotherobj ect i ve evi dence s upport i ng thei rcl ai m s , nordi d they i ncl ude s peci f i c i nf orm at i on thatw oul d hel p the A L J conf i rm thei ras s ert i ons . T he A L J and the d istric t co u rt p ro p e rly fo u n d th a t th e se lette rs d id n o t re q u ire th e A L J to fin d th a t V e lla5

s uf f er ed f r om a medi cal l y det erm i nabl e i m pai rm entpr i ort o age tw enty- tw o. A ccor di ngl y, al though V el l a’ s t es t i m ony and l ett er s pai nta s ym pathet i c pi ctur e of h is yo u th, i n li g h t of th e lac k o f objecti v e e v iden ce reg ard ing h is m ed ical co n d it ion b efo re he turned tw enty- tw o, w e f i nd thats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the A L J ’ s and di s tr i ct c o u rt’s d e c isio n s th a t h e fa iled to e sta b lish th a t h e su ffe re d fro m a m e d ica lly d e ter m in a b le ps ychi atr i c i m pai rm entdur i ng thatt i m e per i od. V el l a cl ai m s thatw e s houl d r emand t hi s cas e bec aus e the A L J f ai l ed t o devel op the re c o rd . W e d isa g re e . T h e A L J o b tain e d a ll av a ilab le m e d ica l re c o rd s fr o m so u rc e s V e lla i dent i f i ed. I n l i ghtof

the l ack of

r ecor ds r egar di ng the r el evantper i od, the A L J r eques t ed, recei ved , and con si dered ad dit i on al l ay st at em ents fr om V el l a’s brother and fr i end . T hese s t at ement s w er e l ar gel y concl us ory, and pr ovi ded no medi cal r ecor ds orotherobj ect i ve evi dence . V el l a cl ai m s the A L J s houl d have tr i ed t o obt ai n m or e det ai l ed s t at ement s f r om thos e l ay w i tnes s es . B utthe A L J act ed w el l w i thi n hi s di s cr et i on i n det erm i ni ng that a d d iti o n a l w itn e ss tes tim o n y w a s u n n e c e ss a ry fo r fu ll p re se n tatio n o f th is c a se , es p e c ially i n l i ghtof

the f actthatnei therthe br othernorthe f r i end i ndi cat ed thatthey had f ur ther i nf orm at i on t o add t o thei rw r i t t en s t at ement s . See Y ancy v. A pf el , 145 F. 3d 106, 113- 14 (2 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). W e h a v e c o n sid e re d a ll o f V e lla’s re m a in in g a rg u m e n ts a n d fin d th e m to b e w ith o u t m e rit. F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , th e j u d g me n to f c o n v i c t i o n i s AF F I RMED . FOR TH E CO UR T: C athe ri n e O ’H ag an W o lf e, C lerk o f C o u rt