The Hon orable John F. Nangle, Senior Judge, United States District Court for 1 the Eastern District of Missouri, by designation. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-3528

___________ Marilyn Walker o/b/o * Brian Walker, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas Kenneth Apfel, * Commissioner, Social * Security Administration, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: March 13, 1998 Filed: April 9, 1998

___________ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BOWMAN, Circuit Judges, and NANGLE, Senior District Judge. 1

___________ NANGLE, Senior District Judge.
Appell ant in this case appeals the grant of summary judgment by the Unite d States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arka nsas in favor of Appellee. This-2-

case s tems from the denial of Supplemental Security Income benefits to Marily n Walker's son, Brian.

Judic ial review of the final decision of the Commissioner to deny benefits i s limited to whether there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the decision. Comstock v. Chater , 91 F.3d 1143, 1145 (8 Cir. 1997). Substantia l th evidence is less than a preponderance, but enough so t hat a reasonable mind might find it adequate to support the conclusion. Robinson v. Sullivan , 956 F.2d 836, 838 (8t h Cir. 1992) . Erroneous interpretations of law will be reversed. Ingram v. Chater , 107 F.3d 598, 601 (8th Cir. 1997).

On August 22, 1996, Congress enacted the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Welfa re Reform Act), Pub. L. No. 104-193, 110 Sta t. 2105 (1996), which amended § 1614(a)(3) of the Social Security Act, 4 2 U.S. C. 1382c(a)(3). Under the new law, in order to qualify for disability benefits, a child's impairment or combi nation of impairments must cause more serious limitations than the old law and regulations required. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.924. Since Marily n Wal ker's application for benefits was pending as of the date of the enactment of th e Welfare Reform Act, the new law and regulations apply to this case. P.L. 104-193, § 211(d)(1)(A)(ii). The ALJ found Brian not disabled under the old, less restrictiv e standard. The Magistrate Judge correctly determined that if substantial evidenc e supported the ALJ's determination that Brian was not disabled under the old law, the same result would be reached under the new, more restrictive law. Jamerson v. Chater , 112 F.3d 1064, 1066 (9 Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we will determine whether th e th claimant was properly denied benefits under the old law.The supplemental hearing occurred while Brian was 19, an adult. Th e 2 sequen tial evaluation is the same for adults and children at steps 1 and 2. See 2 0 C.F.R. § 416.920 (determination of disability for adults); 20 C.F.R. 416.92 4 (determin ation of disability for children). The ALJ's determination that Brian is no t disabled as an adult mirrored the determination that he was no t disabled as a child. For the sa ke of simplicity, since the evidence presented at the hearing concerned Brain' s ability as a child, this Court will only analyze Brian's disability onc e, under the standard for children. -3- To determine whether a child is entitled to disability benefits, the prio r regulations required the ALJ to apply a four-step seque ntial evaluation: (1) Is the child 2 engaged in substantial gainful activity? If so, benefits are denied; if not, the evaluation proceeds to step two. (2) Does the child have an impairment or combination o f impairments that is severe? If not, benefits are denied; if so, the ev aluation is continued to th e next step. (3) Does the child have a medically determinable impairment tha t meets or medically equals a listed impairment that is presumed disabling? If so, and the duration re quirement is met, benefits are awarded; if not the evaluation continues. (4) Is the impairment of comparable severity to impairments that would disable a n adult? I f so, and the duration requirement was met, benefits are awarded. If not , benefits are denied. 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(b)-(f). The ALJ determined that although he was not engaged in substantial gainful activi ty, Brian did not have a severe impairment as defined at step 2, and halted the sequential evaluation.
Brian has consistently scored between 65 and 69 on IQ tests, and results of other tests indicate mild mental retardation . His parents testify that Brian is not responsible, and withdraws from others. His teachers testify that he functions well in school, and has good concentration ability, even though his core classes are special educatio n classes. Brian has testified that he thinks he can handle a job, and at the time of the supplemental hearing, he had applied for several. Brian goes to sporting events with friends, has a driver's license, goes shopping, and does chores around the house. He-4-

has no physical impairment other than nearsightedness that is corrected by glasses. The AL J found that the longitudinal evidence that Brian functions well at school and i n social settin gs belied any severe impairment, and halted the evaluation at step 2. The Commissioner accordingly denied disability benefits to Marilyn Walker.

This Court finds that there is substantial evidenc e to support the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits. Accordingly, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

A true copy.

ATTEST:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.