The Honorable 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.

Appellant in this case appeals the grant of summary judgment by the United

States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas in favor of Appellee. This
-2-

case stems from the denial of Supplemental Security Income benefits to Marilyn

Walker's son, Brian.

Judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner to deny benefits is

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). Substantial

th

evidence is less than a preponderance, but enough so that a reasonable mind might find

it adequate to support the conclusion. Robinson v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 836, 838 (8th

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 (Welfare Reform Act), Pub. L. No. 104-193,

110 Stat. 2105 (1996), which amended § 1614(a)(3) of the Social Security Act, 42

U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3). Under the new law, in order to qualify for disability benefits, a

child's impairment or combination of impairments must cause more serious limitations

than the old law and regulations required. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.924. Since Marilyn

Walker's application for benefits was pending as of the date of the enactment of the

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 restrictive

standard. The Magistrate Judge correctly determined that if substantial evidence

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 the

th

claimant was properly denied benefits under the old law.
The supplemental hearing occurred while Brian was 19, an adult. The

2

sequential evaluation is the same for adults and children at steps 1 and 2. See 20

C.F.R. § 416.920 (determination of disability for adults); 20 C.F.R. 416.924

(determination of disability for children). The ALJ's determination that Brian is not

disabled as an adult mirrored the determination that he was not disabled as a child. For

the sake of simplicity, since the evidence presented at the hearing concerned Brain's

ability as a child, this Court will only analyze Brian's disability once, under the standard

for children.

-3-

To determine whether a child is entitled to disability benefits, the prior

regulations required the ALJ to apply a four-step sequential 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 of

impairments that is severe? If not, benefits are denied; if so, the evaluation is continued

to the next step. (3) Does the child have a medically determinable impairment that

meets or medically equals a listed impairment that is presumed disabling? If so, and

the duration requirement is met, benefits are awarded; if not the evaluation continues.

(4) Is the impairment of comparable severity to impairments that would disable an

adult? If 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 activity, 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 education

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

ALJ found that the longitudinal evidence that Brian functions well at school and in

social settings 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 evidence 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.