FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 8, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 72 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :0 8- cv -0 17 01 -GAP-DAB

DOROTHY MOISE, on be ha lf o f Ken y at et taE. Fran kl in , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us

COMM ISSI ONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 8, 2 01 0)Befo re EDMONDSON, CARNES, an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es .

PER CURI AM: On b eh al f of

he r m in orni ece, Ken y at et taE. Fran kl in , Doro th y Mo is e ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on affi rm in g t he Co m m is si on er’s d en ia l o f Fran kl in ’s supp le m en ta l s ecu rit y in co m e b en efi ts , 42 U.S.C. §§ 40 5( g) , 13 83 (c)( 3) . Thatde ni al was b as edon , am on g o th er thi ng s, a fi nd in g th atth e Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e was no t b ia se d. In supp ort o f he r reque stfor
rev ie w to th e App eal s C ou nc il , Mo is e al le ge d t ha t Fr an kl in“ di d n otrece iv e a fu ll
an d fa ir h eari ng be fo re thi s ALJ .” Mo is e co nt en ds on ly tha t t he App eal s C ou nc il ap pl ie d t he in co rrec t l eg al st an da rdun de r SSA Publ ic at io n No . 05 -1 00 71 an d S SA pr oc edur al reg ul at io n 5 7 F ed . Reg . 49 18 6 b y fai li ng to “ lo okin to ” h er co m pl ai nt th atth e ALJ was bi as edinde nyin g t he be ne fit s cl ai m . Mo is e arg ue s t ha t t he 1 App eal s C ou nc il fai le d t o “ lo okbe y on d” th e tr an sc rip t an d s ee a p atte rnof ret al ia ti on by the ALJ ag ai ns t cl ai m an ts rep res en te d b y he r at to rn ey , Ric ha rd Cu lb ert so n. Ourrev ie w of the Co m

m is si on er’s d eci si on is “ de m arca te d b y a de fere nt ia l
Moise does not contest the AL J ’s substantive finding reg arding cessation of Fr anklin’s 1 disability or otherwise take is s u e with the Commi ssioner’s final decision in her brief. Moise’s failure to raise the issues means that we need not addre ss their merits. Acc ess Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004) (“[T]he law is by now well settled in this Circuit that a leg al claim or argument that has not be en brie fed be fore the cour t is deemed a

bandoned a

nd its merits will not be addr essed.” ). 2reco ns id erat io n o f th e fi nd in gs of f actan d an e xa ct in g e xa m in at io n o f th e
co nc lu si on s o f la w.” Mart in v. Su ll iv an , 89 4 F .2d15 20 , 15 29 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). The Co m m is si on er’s “ co nc lu si on s o f la w, in cl ud in g app li cab le rev ie w st an da rd s,
are n otpre su m edva li d” an d are re vi ewedde no vo , bu t t he Co m m is si on er’s fac tu al fin di ng s ar e co nc lu si ve if “ supp orte d b y subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce.” Id . (qu ot at io n
m ark s o m it te d) . Sub st an ti al ev id en ce i s “ m or e th ana sc in ti ll a, bu t l es s t ha n a pr ep on de ran ce: itis su ch rel ev an t ev id en ce as a reas on ab le pe rs on wou ldacce ptas ad equa te to supp ort a c on cl us io n.” Id. (quo ta ti onm ark s an d a lt erat io ns om it te d)
. A Soc ia l Se cu rity

cla im an t i s en ti tl edto a he ari ng th atis “ fu ll an d fa ir.” Mi le s v . Cha te r, 84 F.3d13 97 , 14 00 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). The ALJpl ay s a “ cru ci al
ro le in th e d is ab il ity

rev ie w pro ces s” an d h as a du ty to “ de ve lo p aful l an d fa ir
reco rd ” an d t o “ care fu ll y weig h t he ev id en ce, g iv in g i nd iv idua li zedco ns id erat io n to each cla im .” Id . at 1 40 1. Be cau se th e ALJ’s d eci si onwil l t y pi cal ly be th e fi na l
wor d g iv enou r st an da rdof r ev ie w, th e ALJ’s i m pa rti al ity is “ in te gr al to th e in te gr it y of t he syste m .” Id . The ALJ t hu s m us t “ no t co nduc t a h eari ng if h e o r sh e is pre jud ic edor p art ia l wi th res pe ctto an y pa rty or h as an y

in te res t i n t he
m at te r pe nd in g fo r de ci si on .” Id . at 1 40 0 (quo ti ng 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.9 40 ). If a cl ai m an t fe ars th ata pa rti cu la r ALJ wi ll no t p ro vi de a fai r he ari ng , sh e
m us t n ot ify the ALJ atth e ear li es t o pp ortu ni ty. 20 C.F.R. § 41 6.1 44 0. If t he ALJ
3de cl in es to recu se he rs el f, th e cl ai m an t m ay see k re co ns id erat io n b y

rai si ng th e is su e b efo re the App eal s C ou nc il . Id. The cu rren t v ers io n o f SSA Publ ic at io n No
. 05 -1 00 71 pro vi de s: If y ou th in k an y ALJ tre at ed y ou un fai rly, y ou sh ou ld te ll us ab ou t it an d as k us to lo ok in to it
. You can as k ev en whi le we ar e d e c i d i n g you r cl ai m for be ne fit s.

. . . So m eo ne who ha s no t be en ha nd li ng y ou r cl ai m be fo re wil l lo ok in to th e in fo rm at io n y ou ga ve us in th e co m pl ai nt
. You wil l be advi se d whe n th e m at te r is clo se d. If y ou al so ap pe al ed t h e d eci si on on y ou r cl ai m an d in cl ud ed in fo rm at io n ab ou t y ou r co m pl ai nt , th e App eal s C o u n ci l wil l ad dr es s y ou r co m pl ai ntwhen res po nd in g t o you r ap pe al
. SSA Pub. No . 05 -1 00 71 (20 10 ). Mo is e al so po in ts to a no ti ce t it le d “ So ci al Secu rity Adm in is tra ti on Pro cedur es Co nc ern in g Al le ga ti on s o f Bi as or M is co nduc t b y Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg es ” th atst at es : SSA is co m

m it te d t o p r o v i d in g ev ery cl ai m an t an d hi s or he r rep res en ta ti ve fai r an d un bi as ed tre at m en t in th e ha nd li ng of al l clai m s bu y [s ic ] it s [Offi ce of

Heari ng s an d Ap pe al s] h eari ng of fic es . SSA is al so co m m it te d to en su rin g th at cl ai m an ts an d th ei r rep res en ta ti ve s are affo rd ed ti m el y op po rtu ni ti es to rai se an y co m pl ai nt s th at th ey m ay ha ve ab ou t al le ge d bi as or m is co nduc t by Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg es , an d to ha ve th ei r co m

pl ai nt s re vi ewedor i nv es ti ga te d. 57 Fed . Reg . 49 18 6– 03 , 49 18 6 (Oc t. 3 0, 1 99 2) . Thatreg ul at io n fu rth er p ro vi de s
4th atif t he co m pl ai ntall eg in g b ia s i s fi le d a fte r th e ALJ’s d eci si on bu t b efo re the
ex pi rat io n o f th e ti m e to ap pe al to th e App eal s C ou nc il , th e cl ai m an t m ay pre se nt th e cl ai m “ to th e App eal s C ou nc il as aba si s fo r gr an ti ng rev ie w,” have th e al le ga ti on s re vi ewedas p artof t he reque stforrev ie w, and“be in fo rm edof t he
res ul ts of t he rev ie w.” Id. at49 18 7. Mo is e p res en te d t o t he App eal s C ou nc il he r cl ai m th atsh e d idno t re cei ve a fu ll an d fa ir h eari ng be fo re the ALJ p res id in g o ve r he r cas e. The Ap pe al s C ou nc il ad dr es se d h er co m

pl ai ntof b ia s i n i ts no ti ce o f act io n. Itst at edth atitha d
rev ie wedth os e al le ga ti on s an d “ care fu ll y stud ie d a ll of t he ev id en ce i n the reco rd , in cl ud in g t he reco rd in g t ha t was m ad e dur in g t he he ari ng .” It i nf orm edMo is e o f th e res ul ts of i ts rev ie w, st at in g i t fo un d “ no ev id en ce o f un fai r tr eat m en t o r ot he r in ap pr op ria te act io n” by the ALJ. The Ap pe al s C ou nc il thus co rrec tl y fol lo wedit s pr oc edur es forha nd li ng cla im s o f bi as on ap pe al
. Mo is e fai le d t o a ll eg e an y sp eci fic in st an ces of t he ALJ’s bi as in he r cas e,
an d t he ALJ m ad e a wel l-r eas on edde ci si on supp orte d b y subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce tha t Fran kl in ’s di sabi li ty cease d a s o f Ju ne 1, 2 00 5. Th atde ci si on do es no t re fle ctan y bi as . AFFIRMED.

5