### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT S eptember9, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1498 7 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00103 -CV -CA R-3 SH A RAJO HN SO N , on b eh al f of Ci nnam on M attox , Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us JO ANNE B. BARNHART, C o mm i s s i o n e r

o f S o c i a l S e c u r i t y, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ (S ep te m be r 9, 200 5) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, A N D E RS O N and B L A CK , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.2

PE R CU RIA M: Plaintiff-Appellant Shara Johnso n, on behalf of her m inor daugh ter, Ci nnam on M attox , appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r af fi rm ing the de nia l by

the So ci al S ec ur ity

A dm ini str at ion( “ SS A ”) of sup ple m en ta l se curi ty

inc om e be ne fi ts (“SS I” ), 4 2 U.S .C . § 1 3 8 2 c( a) (3 )( c) (i ). Ap p el l an tar g u es th at Ci n n amo n ’s co ndi tio n m et

the L ist ing of

I m pa irm en ts f

or Ch ro nic P ulm onary

I nsuf fi ci en cy , 20 C.F.R. Pt . 40 4, Su bp t. P, Ap p. 1 , Lis ti ng 10 3.2 (F)( 1) , andAst hm a, L ist ing 103 . 03( C) (2 ). A nd Appe llant arg ue s th at the A L J f

ai le d to art ic ulate w hy Ci nnam on’ s c ondi tio n di d no t m ed ic al ly e qua l the L ist ing f

or A sth m a w ith A t t a c k s , L i s t i n g 1 0 3 . 0 3 ( B ) . N o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r h a s b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm.

“ W e re vie wthe Co m

m iss ion er ’ s de ci sio n to de te rm ine if it is supp orte d by subs tanti al e vid en ce and b as ed on p ro pe r le ga l st an dard s. ” L ew is v . Ca llahan, 125 F. 3d 1 436, 143 9 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) . “ Su bst an tia l e vid en ce is m or e than asc int ill a an d is suc h r el ev an t e vid en ce a s ar ea sona ble pe rs on w oul d a cc ep t a s a de quate to supp ort a c onc lus ion . ” I d. a t 14 40. “ E ve n if the e vid en ce pr ep onde rate s a ga ins t the [Com m issio ner] ’ s finding s, w e m ust affirm if the decision reached is supported by subst antial evidence.” Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990 ).3

Fo r a pe rs on unde r ag e 18 t o be e nti tle d to S SI be ne fi ts, that pe rs on m ust have “ a m ed ic al ly

de te rm ina

ble phy sic al or

m en ta l i m

pa irm en t, w hic h r es ult s in m ar ke d and s ev er e func tio na l l im itatio ns, and whic h c anbe e xpe ct ed to re sul t i n de ath or w hic h ha s la ste d or

c anbe e xpe ct ed

to la st f or ac ont inu ous pe ri od o f not less than 12 m onth s.” 42 U. S. C. § 138 2c(a)( 3)(C) (i). T he SSAuses a three- step an al y sis to m ak e thi s de te rm inatio n. F ir st, it de te rm ine s w he the r the c la im an t i s engaged in su bstantial gain ful activity . If not, as with Cinnam on, the SSA de te rm ine s w he the r the c la im an t ha s ase ve re im pa irm en t or

c om bin at ionof im pairm ents. Cinnam on has asthm a, a severe im pairm ent. S o, the SS A then de te rm ine s w he the r the im pa irm en t or

c om bin at ionof

im pa irm en ts m ee ts o r is m edically or functionally

equal to an im

pairm ent listed in Appendi x 1 of 20 C.F. R. pa rt 4 04 , subp artP, an d o th erwi se sat is fie s t he du rat io n re qu ire m en t. 2 0 C .F.R. § 41 6.9 24 (a); W il so n v . Apfe l, 1 79 F.3d12 76 , 12 77 n.1 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). “ To

‘ m ee t’ aL ist ing , ac la im an t m ust have adia gnos is i nc lud ed in the L ist ing s and m ust pr ovi de m ed ic al r ep orts d oc um en tin g th at the c ondi tio ns m ee t the spe ci fi c cr ite ri a of the L ist ing s and the dur at ionr eq uir em en t. ” W ils on v . Barnhart , 284 F.3 d 1 21 9, 1 22 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) . Fi rs t, Joh nsonarg ue s th at Ci nnam on m et

L ist ing 103 . 02( F) (1 ), “ ch ro nic pul m onary

ins uf fi ci en cy , ” be ca

use she w as hos pit al iz ed

f or r es pir at or

y dis tr es s inJ ohnson asser ts that the AL J err ed by

failingto mention Ci nnamon’s Nove mber 1999 hospital 1 admission. But the evide nce doe s not show that the November 1999 was a

quali fy ing a dmission un de r t he L ist ing : th e AL J wa s n ot r e qu ir e d to a dd re ss i t. 4 N ove m be r 1999 and f

or a cu te a sth m at ic br onc hit is i n M ay 200 0. Joh nson co nte nds that C inn am on’ s c ondi tio n is c hr oni c: she r equir es da ily tr eatm en t, and she ha s r ec ei ve d e m er ge nc y c ar e se ve n ti m es in tw o y ears . To m eet L isting 103.02(F)(1), a claim ant m ust have “ [t] wo re quired hos pital adm iss ion s ( ea chlon ge r than 24 hours ) w ith in a 6- m onth pe ri od f

or r ec ur re nt lo wer res pi rat ory

tra ctin fect io ns or a cu te res pi rat ory di st res s as so ci at edwit h . . . [c] hronic wheezing or chronic re spiratory distress.” 20 C. F. R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App . 1 § 10 3.2 (F)( 1) . Su bst an tia l e vid en ce sup ports the A L J’ s de te rm inatio n th at Ci nnam on d id not m eet L isting 103.02(F)(1). Cinnam on was hospitalized for m ore than 24 hou rs in N ove m be r 1999 f

or r es pir at or

y dis tr es s: s he w as dia gnos ed w ith“pr oba

ble syncytical bronchiolit is” and she exhibi ted occasional wheez ing. But the m edical re co rd s f ro m thi s e pis ode do n ot m en tio n “ ac ute r es pir at or y dis tr es s” or

“ ch ro nic w he ez ing . ” T he N ove m

be r 1999 e pis ode doe s no t m ee t the r equir em en ts o f the L ist ing . I n M ay

200 0, Ci nnam on w as hos pit al iz ed f or m or e than 24 hours f

or 1

“ ac ute a sth m at ic br onc hit is. ” T he r ec or ds f ro m thi s e pis ode , how ev er , do n ot showthat he r co ndi tio n w as a sso ci at ed w ithc hr oni c w he ez ing or c hr oni c5

re spi rator y dis tr es s. B ut e ve n a ssum ing that the May 200 0 e pis ode r es ult ed

in a diagno sis m eeting the Listing’s r equirem ents, the re cord does not s how that C. M. w as hos pit al iz ed

tw ic e in a

six m onth pe ri od f

or c ondi tio ns m ee tin g th e spe ci fi c criteria of L isting 103.02(F)(1). John son next argues that Cinnam on’s c ondi tion m eets L isting 103.03(C)(2), as thm a, be ca

use ( 1) she ha s be enpr es cr ibe d st er oid s onm an y oc ca sio ns, but

sti ll suf fe rs f ro m c hr oni c w he ez ing and c ough ing , ( 2) she use s ane bul iz er da ily , and (3 ) she f re que ntl y goe s to the hos pit al to tr eat he r as thm a. A nd s he c ha lle nge s th e A L J’ s de te rm inatio n th at she e nj oy ed

sy m pto m -f re e pe ri ods. T o m ee t L ist ing 103 . 03( C) (2 ), a sth m a, the c la im an t m ust suf fe r fr om

“persistent low-grade wheezing betwee n acute attacks or a bsence of extended sym pto m -f re e pe ri ods re qui ri ng d ay tim e an d no ct

ur na l us e of sy m pa tho m im et ic bronchod ilators with . . . [s] hort courses of corticosteroids that average m ore than 5 day s pe r m onth f

or a t l ea st 3 m onths d

ur ing a12- m onth pe ri od. 20 C. F. R. P t. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 § 103 .03(C) (2). Su b s t an t i al ev i d en ce s up p o rt s th e A LJ ’s d et er m i n at i o n th at Ci n n amo n ’s asthm a fa iled to m eet the L isting criter ia. The record shows that Cinnam on was prescribed steroids for her a sthm a. But the m edical evidence does not ind icate that Ci nnam on t ook the se m ed ic at ion s f or m or e than 5 d ay s pe r m onth f or a t l ea st 3J ohnson submitt ed a handwritten chart listing Cinnamon’s daily medications and indicating that 2 Cinnamon had taken one vial of P ulmicort, a st eroid, twice per da y since Septembe r 1999. B ut the acc urac y of this char

t is questionable. J ohnson admitted that Cinnamon does not take all the list ed medications all of the time, and the chart listed the m edication Rondec as a st eroid, when Rondec is not a steroid. And J o h n son points to onl y two instances in the r ecor d wher e Pulmicort was presc ribed. Cinnamon’s pediatric ian, Dr. Gena Alexander-A lbert, noted that she ha d evaluated Cinnamon 3 six times f or whe ezing f

rom 19 Novembe r 1999 until 26 September 2002. B ut Dr. Alexander- Albert did not chara cter ize Ci nnamon’s whe ezing a s “per sistent.” 6 m onth s during a 12-m onth period. Instead, subs tantial evidence in the record 2 supp orts a

c onc lus ionthat C inn am on’ s st er oid use w as not

f re que nt e noug h to m ee t the L ist ing . O n num er ous oc ca sio ns whe n C inn am on v isi te d th e pe di at ric ia n, t he do ct orno te d t ha t s he cu rren tl y was n ot on m ed ic at io ns . A nd, sub stanti al e vid en ce sup ports the A L J’ s de te rm inatio n th at Ci nnam on en j oy ed sy m pto m f re e pe ri ods. T he r ec or d in dic at es that C inn am on s uf fe re d f ro m bout s of w he ez ing f

ro m ti m e to t im e, e spe ci al ly

w he n sh e w as e xpe ri en ci ng respiratory

distress. But the rec ord also sho ws that Cinnam on was exam ined

3 m any ti m es w he n no w he ez ing w as not ed . J o h n s o n ar g u es th i rdth at a s t ro n g p o s s i b i l i t y ex i s t s th at Ci n n amo n ’s co ndi tio n m ed ic al ly

e qua ls L ist ing 103 . 03( B) , a sth m a w itha tta ck s, and tha t the A L J e rr ed

by not e xpl ai nin g hi s de te rm inatio n th at Ci nnam on’ s c ondi tio n di d no t m ed ic al ly e qua l any

li sti ng. Joh nsona sse rt s th at , f ro m N ove m be r 1999 unt il7

D ec em be r 2001 , Ci nnam on s uf

fe re d th e equiv al en t of

10 s ev er e as thm a atta ck s and suffered f

rom prolong ed asthm a flar e-ups at hom e. A sth m a “ atta ck s” are de fi ne d a s: pr olo nge d sy

m pto m at ic e pis ode s la sti ng o ne or m or e day s and re qui ri ng i nte nsi ve tr eatm en t, suc h a s in tr av en ous br onc hodi la tor or an tib iot ic a dm ini str at ionor pr olo nge d inha la tio na l br onc hodi la tor the ra py in a hosp ita l, e m er ge nc y r oom or e qui va le nt s ettin g. 20 C . F. R. P t. 404 , sub pt. P , App. 1 § 3. 00( C) . A nd t o m ee t L ist ing 103. 03( B) , ac hil d m

ust have a sth m a w ith“ atta ck s” in s pit e of

pr es cr ibe d tr eatm en t and r equir ing phy sic ian in te rv en tio n, occurring at least once ever y 2 m onth s or at least six tim es a y ear. E ac h inpa tie nt h ospi ta liz at ionf or lon ge r than 24 hours f

or c ontro l of as thm a co unt s a s tw o a tta ck s, and an e va luatio n pe ri od o f at le as t 12 co nse cu tiv e m onths m

ust be use d to de te rm ine the f re que nc y of at ta ck s. 20 C . F. R. P t. 404 , S ubpt . P , App. 1 § 103. 03( B) . I f a cl ai m an t do es not e xhi bit one or m or e of the m ed ic al f

ind ing s sp ec if

ie d ina part ic ular lis tin g, or

e xhi bit s a ll of the m ed ic al f

ind ing s, but

one or m or e is n ot a s se ve re a s sp ec if ie d inthe li sti ng, the S SA“ w ill ne ve rthe le ss f ind that [ the ] im

pa irm en t i s m ed ic al ly

e qui va le nt t o that l ist ing if

[ the c la im an t ha s] oth er

m ed ic al f

ind ing s r el at ed

to [h er ] im

pa irm en t th atare at lea stof e qu al m ed ic al si gn ifi can ce.” 2 0 C .F.R. § 4 16 .92 6( a)(1 ). Me dic al e qui va le nc e m

ust be ba se d onm ed ic al f

ind ing s th at

are a t l ea st e qua l i n se ve ri ty and d ur at ionto the li ste d f

ind ing s. S ee W ils on, 284 F . 3d at 12 24.8

W e re j ec t Jo hnso n’ s arg um en t tha t the A L J e rr ed by not e xpl ai nin g hi s re as oni ng. T he A L J e xpl ai ne d th e w ei ght he a cc or de d to c er

ta in p ie ce s of ev ide nc e an d st at ed

that, ba se d ona ll the r ec or d e vid en ce , Ci nnam on’ s c ondi tio n did not m ed ic al ly

or f unc tio na lly

e qua l a li ste d im pa irm en t. T his state m en t i s sufficient evidence that the AL J consid ered ( and rej ected) a determ ination that Ci nnam on’ s c ondi tio n m et L ist ing 103 . 03( B) . S ee W ils on, 284 F . 3d at 12 24 (w riting that th e A LJ’ s determ ination -- that “ the m edical evidence establishes that [claim ant] had [several inj uries] which constitute a ‘ severe im pairm ent’ , but that he did not have an im

pa irm en t or

c om bin at ionof

im pa irm en ts” that m ed ic al ly equa le d ali sti ng - - w as “ ev ide nc e that [ the A L J] c onsi de re d th e co m bin ed e ff ec ts of [claim ant] ’ s im

pairm ents”). An d , s ub s t an t i al ev i d en ce s up p o rt s th e A LJ ’s co n cl u s i o n th at Ci n n amo n ’s co ndi tio n di d no t m ed ic al ly or f unc tio na lly

e qua l a li ste d im pa irm en t, inc lud ing Listing 103 .03(B) . Cinnam on was re quired to present m edical evidence that her as thm a atta ck s are e qui va le nt t o th e lis tin g. S ee Be ll v. Bo w en , 796 F . 2d 1 350, 1353 ( 11th C ir . 198 6) . Joh nsonpoi nts to the 10 a sth m a atta ck s C inn am on suffere d over a 25-m onth period. B ut the record contains no evid ence that Ci nnam on h ad

a ddi tio na l a sth m a atta ck s th at r equir ed int en siv e tr eatm en t e qua l t o a hosp ita liz at ion . T he r ec or d sh ow s th at Ci nnam on u se d ane bul iz er and t ook9

as thm a m ed ic at ionda ily ; bu t the e vid en ce doe s no t su ppor t a c onc lus ionthat this tr eatm en t w as int en siv e or that he r as thm a fl ar e- ups w er e as se ve re a s th e atta ck s that r eq uir ed hos pit al iz at ion . Insum , sub stanti al e vid en ce sup ports the A L J’ s c onc lus ionthat C inn am on w as not dis ab le d. AFFIR MED.