FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A pr i l11, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 15313 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -003 55 -C V -B -S J A M E S E . R O B I N S O N , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s M I C H A E L J . A S T R U E , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( A p r i l11, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , H U L L an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: J a m e s E . R obi ns on ( “ R obi ns on” ) appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de ra f f i rm i ng2

the de ni a l of

hi s appl i c a t i on f

ordi s abi l i ty i ns ur a nc e be ne f i t s ( “ D I B ” ) by the C o m m i s s i o n e ro f

S o c i a l S e c u r i ty ( “ th e C o m m i s s i o n e r ” ) . 4 2 U. S . C . § 4 0 5 ( g ) . He ra i se s onl y one i ss ue on appeal , nam el y, thatthe adm i ni stra t i ve l aw j ud ge (“ A L J” ) di d notf ul l y a nd f

a i r l y de ve l op the r e c or d. W e r ev iew a s o cial se cu rity ca se to d eter m in e w h eth erth e C o m m issio n er ’s deci si on i s s up po rt ed by subst ant i al evi dence and w hether the corre ctl egal s ta n d a r d s w e r e ap p lie d . Se e L e w is v . Cal lahan , 12 5 F . 3d 14 36 , 14 39 (11th C i r. 19 97 ). “ S ub st ant i al evi dence i s def i ned as m ore than a sc i nt i l l a, i . e. , evi dence that m us tdo m or e tha n c r e a t e as us pi c i on of the e xi s t e nc e of

the f a c tt o be e s t abl i s he d, a n d s u c h r e le v a n t e v id e n c e a s ar e a s o n ab le p e r s o n w o u ld a c c e p t a s a d e q u a te to supp ortthe concl usi on . ” Foo te v . Cha ter , 67 F . 3d 1553, 1560 ( 11th C i r . 1995) (p er cu ri am ) (i n t ern al ci t at i o n o m i tt ed ). E v en i f th e ev i d en ce p rep o n d erat es ag ai n st th e C o m m is s io n e r ’s f

in d in g s , th e d e c is io n r e a c h e d m u s t b e a f f irm e d if it is s u p p o rte d b y s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . Craw f ord v. C om m ’r , 363 F . 3d 1155, 1158- 59 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . I n c onduc t i ng thi s r e vi e w , w e do notr e w e i gh the e v id e n c e o rs u b s titu te o u rju d g m e n t f o rth a t o f th e C o m m is s io n e r . M

art i n v. Sul l i v an , 89 4 F . 2d 15 20 , 15 29 (11th C i r. 19 90 ). T he C om m i ss i on er ’ s l egal c onc l us i ons , how e ve r , a r e r e vi e w e d de n o vo . L ew is v. B a rn h a rt , 285 F . 3d 1329, 13 30 (11th C i r. 20 02 ) ( per c uri am ).3

T he C om m i s s i one ra s s e rt s , a nd w e a gr e e , tha tR obi ns on ha s w a i ve d the a r gum e nttha tthe r e c or d w a s notf ul l y a nd f

a i r l y de ve l ope d be c aus e he di d not pr e s e nti tbe f

or e the di s tr i c tc ourt. “ A s age ne r a l pr i nc i pl e , thi s c ourtw i l l not addres s an argum entthathas notbeen rai se d i n the di stri ctcourt . ” St ew art v. D ep’t o f H ea l th a n d H u m a n Servs. , 26 F . 3d 11 5, 11 5 (11 th C i r. 19 94 ) ( af fi rm i ng deni al o f c la im a n t’s ap p lic a tio n f o rd is ab ilitya n d s u p p le m e n ta l s e c u r ityin c o m e ) .

“ A l though thi s c ourtm a y he a ra n i s s ue notr a i s e d i n the l ow e rc ourtw he n the prop erre sol ut i on i s bey on d any do ub t , i ss ues i nv ol vi ng the re sol ut i on of fa ctual qu es t i on s c an never be beyond d ou bt . ” I d. a t 1 1 5 - 1 6 . E ve n a s s um i ng ar

gue ndo th a t w a iv e rd id n o t o c c u r , w e f in d th a t th e A L J d id n o tf a i l t o f u l l ya n d f

a i r l y d e v e l o p th e r e c o r d . Ro b i n s o n a r g u e s th a tth e ALJ e rr one ous l y i ns truc t e d hi m t o a c qui r e m i s s i ng m e di c a l r e c or ds w i thi n 15 da y s of the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve he a r i ng. H e c l a i m s tha tthe A L J s houl d ha ve r e que s t e d the r e c o r d s h im s e lf

, a n d w ith o u t th e s e m is s in g r e c o r d s : ( 1 ) th e A L J ’s d e c is io n c o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n b a s e d o n s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e ; ( 2 ) h e d id n o t r e c e iv e af u ll a n d f a ir h e a r in g ; a n d ( 3 ) w a s p r e ju d ic e d to s u c h a n e x te n t th a t r e v e r s a l o rr e m a n d is n ecessary.

“ A he a r i ng be f

or e a n A L J i s nota n a dve r s a r i a l pr oc e e di ng” a nd, w he the ror n o t th e ap p lic a n t is r e p r e s e n te d , “th e A L J h a s ab a s ic o b lig a tio n to d e v e lo p af u ll4

and fai r r ec ord. ” G raha m v. Apf el , 12 9 F . 3d 14 20 , 14 22 (11th C i r. 19 97 ) ( per curi am ). T he A L J has a s peci al du ty t o ensure the re cord dem on stra t es thatan unr e pr e s e nte d cl ai m antw ho di d n otw ai ve coun se l w as no tprej ud i ce d b y the l ac k o f c o u n s e l. B r o w n v . Sh a la la , 4 4 F. 3 d 9 3 1 , 9 3 4 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 1 9 9 5 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) . By i m pl i ca t i on , w here coun se l has bee n w ai ved, the spec i al du ty t o d evel op the re cord d o e s n o t ta k e e f

f e c t. Se e i d. T he A L J i s r e qui r e d t o de ve l op the c l a i m a nt ’ s c om pl e t e m e di c a l hi s t ory f or a tl e a s tthe 12 m onths pr e c e di ng the m onth i n w hi c h the appl i c a t i on w a s f i l e d, a nd t o m a ke e ve ry r e a s onabl e e f f ortt o he l p ac l a i m a ntge tm e di c a l r e port s f r om the c la im a n t’s o w n m e d ic a l s o u r c e s w h e n p e rm is s io n is g iv e n . See 2 0 C. F. R. § 4 16 . 91 2(d). M edi ca l source s s ho ul d b e r ec on t ac t ed w hen the evi dence re ce i ved f r om tha ts our c e i s i na de qua t e t o de t e rm i ne w he the rthe c l a i m a nti s di s abl e d. 20 C . F . R . §§ 40 4. 15 12 (e ), 41 6. 91 2(e) . “ N everthel es s, the cl ai m antbear s the bu rden of pr ovi ng tha the i s di s abl e d, a nd, c ons e que nt l y , he i s r e s pons i bl e f orpr oduc i ng evi dence i n sup po rtof hi s c l ai m . ” E l l iso n v. B a rn h a rt , 3 5 5 F .3 d 1 2 7 2 , 1 2 7 6 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 03 ) ( per c uri am ). A l tho ug h h e w as un re pres ent ed atthe heari ng , because R ob i nson w ai ved c o u n s e l, th e A L J d id n o t h a v e as p e c ia l d u tyto d e v e lo p th e r e c o r d . Se e Br o wn , 44 F . 3d a t934. I n Br o wn , w h e r e th e u n r e p r e s e n te d ap p lic a n t h a d n o t w a iv e d c o u n s e l,Robinson’s last insured date is June 30, 2001. Thus, evidence of disability after that 1 date is not pertinent to his current application for DIB. See 42 U.S.C. § 423. 5 th e r e c o r d d i d n o tc o n t a i n s e v e r a l p e rt i n e n tp i e c e s o f i n f o rma t i o n a n d th e ALJ s ta te d th a t h e w o u ld r e q u e s t th e m is s in g r e c o r d s , b u t f a ile d to d o s o . I

d. a t933- 35, W e r e v e r s e d a n d r e m a n d e d h o ld in g th a t th e c la im a n t d id n o t r e c e iv e af u ll a n d f a ir h e a r in g b e c au s e o f

e v id e n tia ry g ap s th a t r e s u lte d in p r e ju d ic e . I d. a t935- 36. U nl i ke Br o wn , i n thi s c a s e the A L J ne ve rs t a t e d tha the w oul d a c qui r e the m i ss i ng re cords thatal l egedl y e xi st ed. A l tho ug h the A L J’ s dec i si on w as re nd er ed l es s than si xty day s a ft erthe heari ng , the dat e of deci si on coul d h ave been po stpo ned i f R ob i nson had i nform ed the A L J thathe needed m ore t i m e t o acqui re m edi ca l re cords. N otw i thst andi ng the A L J’ s duty t o d evel op R ob i nson ’ s m edi ca l hi st ory f or atl ea stthe 12 m on ths prec edi ng the m on th i n w hi ch hi s app l i ca t i on w as f ile d , R o b in s o n b o r e th e u ltim a te b u r d e n o f p r o d u c in g e v id e n c e in s u p p o rt o f h is c la im . E l l is on , 355 F . 3d a t1276. W hi l e R obi ns on ha s pr oduc e d m e di c a l r e c or ds da t i ng f r om a f t e rthe he a r i ng, he s t i l l ha s notpr oduc e d r e c or ds f r om the r e l e va nt t i m e pe r i od. 1 U pon c a r e f

ul r e vi e w of

the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve pr oc e e di ngs , the m e di c a l r e c or d, th e p ro ceed i n g s i n th e d i stri ctco u rt , an d u p o n co n si d erat i o n o f th e p art i es’ b ri efs, w e f i nd no e rr or . A l though R obi ns on w a i ve d the i s s ue by notr a i s i ng i ti n the di s tr i c tc ourt , the A L J di d notf a i l t o f ul l y a nd f

a i r l y de ve l op the r e c or d. AF F I RME D.