2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-12-2008 

# V i varit a s v . C omm S o c i al S ecurity P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4113

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " V ivarit as v . C omm S oc i al S e c urity " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1616. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1616NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 06- 4113 D A W N V I V A RI TA S, A p p e l l a n t

v . CO M M I SS I ON ER O F S OC I AL SECU RI TY O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i v. N o. 05- 04600) H onor abl e Fai th S. H ochber g, D i s tr i ctJ udge A r gued D ece m ber13, 2007 B E FO R E : R E N D E L L , G R E E N B E R G , and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: February12, 2008) A br aham S. A l t er( ar gued) L angt on & A l t er 2096 St . G eor ges A venue R ahw ay , N J 07065 A t t orney s forA ppel l ant C h risto p h e r J. C h ristie U ni t ed St at es A t t orney Som R amrup ( ar gued) S p e c i a l A s s i s t a n tU n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o rn e y2

K r i s t i na C ohn Speci al A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney B arbar a L. Spi vak C h ief C o u n sel – R eg ion II K ar en Fi s zer Seni orA t t orney O ffi ce of the G ener al C ouns el Soci al Secur i tyA dm i ni s tr at i on 26 Feder al Pl aza N ew Y or k, N Y 10278 A t t orney s forA ppel l ee OPI NI ON O F THE COURT G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udge. T hi s m att ercomes on be for e thi s C our ton appea l fr om an or derent er ed i n the D i s tr i ctC our ton A ugus t11, 2006, aff i r m i ng the fi nal deci s i on of the C om m i s s i onerof S o c ial S e c u rityd e n y in g a p p e llan t D a w n V iv a ritas ’ a p p lica tio n f o r so c ial s e c u rity di s abi l i tybenef

i t s . V i var i t as m akes fourar gum ent s i n s uppor tof herappea l . Fi r s t , s he ar gues thatthe A dm i ni s tr at i ve Law J udge ( “A L J ”) fai l ed t o i nform heradequa t el yof her ri g h t to c o u n s e l a n d f

a ile d to d e v e lo p th e re c o rd a d e q u a te ly in lig h t o f h e r l a c k o f

c o u n s e l. Second, V i var i t as ar gues thatthe A L J di d notpr edi cat e herfi ndi ng thatV i var i t as di d not s at i s fythe r equi r ement s of l i s t ed i m pai r m ent12. 05( C ) on s ubs t ant i al evi dence . T hi r d, s he ar gues thatthe A L J di d notbas e herfi ndi ng atthe fourth s t ep of the fi ve- s t ep s equent i al e v a lu a tio n p ro c e d u re th a t V iv a ritas re tain e d th e re sid u a l f u n c tio n a l ca p a c ity(“ R F C ” ) to3

per form herpas tr el evantw or k on s ubs t ant i al evi dence . Four th, V i var i t as ar gues thatt he A L J err ed bynotr el y i ng on a voca t i onal expertatthe fi nal s t ep of the fi ve- s t ep s equent i al e v a lu a tio n p ro c e d u re f

o r d e te rm in in g e lig ib ility f o r b e n e f its . F o r re a so n s th a t w e w ill d isc u ss , w e a g re e th a t th e A L J f a iled to e x p lain adequa t el yt o V i var i t as herr i ghtt o couns el and thatV i var i t as ther efor e di d notw ai ve that ri g h t kn o w ing lyan d intell igen tl y . W e a lso a g ree that the A L J fa il ed to d ev elop the re co rd adequa t el yw i th r es pectt o w hetherV i var i t as s at i s fi ed the r equi r ement s forl i s t ed i m pai rm ent12. 05( C ) . W e ther efor e w i l l r ever s e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or deraff i r m i ng t he C o m m iss io n e r’s d e n ial o f b e n e f its a n d re m a n d th is c a se to th e D istric t C o u rt to re m a n d it t o the C om m i s s i onert o devel op the r ecor d fur ther . I nas m uch as fur therdevel opm entof the r ecor d and the A L J ’ s deci s i on bas ed on thatr ecor d m aym ake c ons i der at i on of s t eps fourand fi ve of the fi ve- s t ep s equent i al eval uat i on pr ocedur e unnec es s ary , w e do not r eac h V i var i t as ’ ot herchal l enges t o the A L J ’ s deci s i on. O n N o v e m b e r 5 , 2 0 0 2 , V iv a ritas f iled a n a p p lica tio n f

o r so c ial s e c u rityd isa b ili ty b e n e f its c laim in g th a t sh e b e c a m e u n a b le to w o rk b e g in n in g in O c to b e r 2 0 0 2 a s a re su lt o f m ig ra in e s, a sth m a , an d d e p re ss io n . T h e C o m m iss io n e r d e n ied h e r a p p lica tio n in iti a lly and on r econs i der at i on. V i var i t as s ubs equent l yfi l ed a r eques tforr evi ew byan A L J t hat r es ul t ed i n a hea r i ng on J ul y15, 2004. T he A L J began the hea r i ng, w hi ch V i var i t as att ended w i thoutcouns el , byi nform i ng herthats he had the r i ghtt o couns el and as ki ng w h e th e rs h e w i s h e d t o p r o c e e d w i th o u tr e p r e s e n t a t i o n o ra d j o u rn th e h e a r i n g f

o r3 0 d a ys4

i n or dert o fi nd couns el . V i var i t as chos e t o pr ocee d w i thoutr epr es ent at i on. D ur i ng t he h e a ri n g , V iv a ri ta s te s tif ie d to h e r p h y s ic a l d is a b iliti e s a n d to h e r m e n ta l lim ita tio n s . B as ed on V i var i t as ’ t es t i m onyconce rni ng herm ent al l i m i t at i ons , the A L J r eques t ed a co n su lt ati v e e x am ination to ev alua te th em . In tw o rep o rt s d ated O ctob er 1 7 , 2 0 0 4 , D r. A nthonyJ . C andel a r eport ed on the r es ul t s of V i var i t as ’ exami nat i on, des cr i bi ng her in te lle c tu a l a n d p s y c h o lo g ic a l c o n d itio n a n d d o c u m e n tin g h e r s c o re s o n s e v e ra l I Q te s ts . O n A pr i l 21, 2005, the A L J deni ed V i var i t as ’ appl i cat i on forbenef i t s . V i var i t as s ubs equent l ys oughtr evi ew bythe A ppeal s C ounci l , w hi ch conc l uded thats he pr ovi ded no gr ounds fora r evi ew of the A L J ’ s deci s i on. O n Sept ember22, 2005, V i var i t as fi l ed thi s act i on i n the D i s tr i ctC our tchal l engi ng the C om m i s s i oner ’ s deni al of herappl i cat i on forbenef i t s . O n A ugus t11, 2006, the D i s tr i ctC our taff

i r m ed the C om m i s s i oner ’ s deni al of bene fi t s . O n Sept ember15, 2006, V iv a ritas f

iled a tim e lyn o tice o f

a p p e a l to th is C o u rt. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on overthi s m att erpur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 405( g) and w e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e exe r ci s e pl enary r evi ew over th e o rd e r o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt a n d o v e r t h e le g a l a s p e c ts o f th e C o m m is s io n e r’ s d e c is io n . S e e K n e p p v . A p f

e l, 20 4 F .3 d 7 8 , 8 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). In a sm u c h a s th e d isp o sitiv e iss u e s in thi s cas e ar e l egal , w e w i l l deci de the ca s e on the bas i s of thats t andar d of r evi ew r ather than o n the u su al ba sis of asc ertaining w h ethe r th ere is sub stan ti al ev iden ce in the rec o rd s uppor t i ng the C om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on. See i d.T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e v e n th C irc u it h a s s tate d th a t “[ t]o e n su re v a lid 1 w ai ver s , A L J s m us texpl ai n t o pr o s e cl ai m ant s ‘ ( 1) the manneri n w hi ch an a t t orneycan a id in th e p ro c e e d in g s, (2 ) th e p o ss ib ili tyo f f re e c o u n se l o r a c o n tin g e n c ya rra n g e m e n t, and ( 3) the l i m i t at i on on att orneyfee s t o 25 per centof pas tdue bene fi t s and r equi r ed courtappr oval of the fe es . ’ ” Ski nnerv. A s true, 478 F. 3d 836, 841 ( 7th C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng B i ni on v. Shal al a, 13 F. 3d 243, 245 ( 7th C i r . 1994) ) . A l though w e have r efe r r ed t o deci s i ons byot hercourt s of appe al s i n des cr i bi ng the s t andar ds foreval uat i ng s oci al s ecur i tyappea l s , w e have notr equi r ed thatA L J s expl ai n eac h of thes e l i s t ed i t ems that the C ou rtof A pp eal s for the S even th C i rcui tcase l aw requi res . 5 T hough a cl ai m antdoes nothave a cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o couns el ata s oci al s ecur i tydi s abi l i tyhear i ng, s he does have a s t atut oryand r egul at oryr i ghtt o couns el at s uch a he ar i ng. 42 U . S. C . § 406; 20 C . F. R . § 404. 1705. T he cl ai m antm us tbe gi ven not i ce of the r i ghtt o couns el and ca n w ai ve thi s r i ghtonl ybya know i ng and i nt el l i gent w aive r. S ee , e.g., S m ith v . S ch w eike r, 6 7 7 F . 2 d 8 2 6 , 8 2 8 (11 th C ir . 1 9 8 2 ). M o reo v er,

1 w her e a c l ai m anti s pr o s e, the A L J has a dutyt o hel p the cl ai m antdevel op the admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d and “musts crupul ous l yand cons ci ent i ous l ypr obe i nt o, i nqui r e of, an d ex p lore f

o r all the re leva n t fac ts. ” R ee fe r v. B arn h art, 3 2 6 F . 3 d 3 7 6 , 3 8 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion s o m itted). A lth o u g h an A L J m ayd en ya p ro se claim an t ben ef it s, itis ap p rop ri ate f

o r a r evi ew i ng courtt o r emand a cas e i f ther e i s “a s how i ng of cl earpr ej udi ce orunfai rnes s at the a d m inistrati v e h ea ri n g . ” D o b row o lskyv . C ali fa n o , 6 0 6 F . 2 d 4 0 3 , 4 0 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 7 9 ); s ee a l s o L i vi ngs t on v. C al i fano, 614 F. 2d 342, 345 ( 3d C i r . 1980) ( “[I ] f i ti s cl earthatt he l ack of couns el pr ej udi ced the cl ai m antorthatthe admi ni s tr at i ve pr ocee di ng w as m arked b yu n f a ir n e s s d u e to th e la c k o f c o u n s e l, th is is s u f

f ic ie n t f o r r e m a n d , o r r e v e rs a l.” ). A6

det erm i nat i on of w hetherthe cl ai m antw ai ved the r i ghtt o couns el know i ngl yand in tellig e n tlyd e ter m in e s w h o h a s th e b u rd e n o f d e m o n stra tin g w h e th e r re m a n d is a p p r o p r i a t e . As th e Cou r to f App e a l s f

o rth e Se v e n th Ci r c u i th a s e x p l a i n e d , “ [ i ] f th e ALJ does notobt ai n a val i d w ai verof couns el , the bur den i s on the C om m i s s i onert o s how t he A L J ad eq u atelyd ev elop ed the re co rd.” S k inn er v . A stru e, 47 8 F . 3 d 8 3 6 , 8 4 2 (7th C ir . 20 07 ). “W hil e a cl ai m ant r epresent ed b ycou nsel i s pres um ed to hav e m ade h i s bestcase b e f o re th e A L J , n o s u c h p re s u m p tio n a tta c h e s to a n u n re p re s e n te d c la im a n t.” Id .

“ W ith o u t th e sh if

tin g o f th is b u rd e n , n o sa n c tio n w o u ld e x ist f o r a n A L J’s in a d e q u a te ex p lana ti o n o f a claim an t’ s ri g h ts. ” B inion v . S h alala, 13 F . 3 d 2 4 3 , 2 4 5 (7th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). I n thi s cas e, the A L J began the hea r i ng byacknow l edgi ng thatV i var i t as di d not have c ouns el and s t at i ng: “Y ou know thaty ou have the r i ghtt o have a r epr es ent at i ve, but y ou ar e notr equi r ed t o have one . ” A pp. at26. T he A L J i nform ed V i var i t as thatthe n o tice o f th e h e a rin g w h ich V iv a ritas h a d re c e iv e d c o n tain e d a list o f p o ss ib le re p re s e n ta tiv e s a n d th a t s h e c o u ld p ro v id e V iv a ri ta s w ith a n a d d itio n a l c o p yif n e c e s s a ry. I d. T he A L J then des cr i bed V i var i t as ’ r i ghtt o couns el i n the fol l ow i ng excha nge: A L J : L etm e fi r s texpl ai n t o y ou w hata r epr es ent at i ve coul d do for

y ou. A r epr es ent at i ve coul d hel p y ou t o gatherm edi cal re c o rd s a n d o th e r d o c u m e n ts in s u p p o rt o f y o u r c a s e . A re p re se n tativ e c o u ld h e lp y o u to o rg a n ize y o u r c a se a n d c o u ld hel p y ou t o pr es enty ourcas e bef or e an A dm i ni s tr at i ve Law J udge. T her e maybe r epr es ent at i ves thatdo notchar ge any m oney . H ave y ou gi ven anythoughtt o gett i ng a r epr es ent at i ve? C L M T : I w as – I w en t t o ch ec k into leg al aide [sic] b ec au se I c an ’t7 aff or d [s i c] and theys ay– I thi nk they ’ r e on Sum m i tor so m e th in g . I w a s lo o k in g f o r it, b u t I c o u ld n ’t f

in d it. A L J: O k ay . W ell , letm e e x p lai n to y o u w h at y o u r op ti o n s are

t oday . Fi r s t , l etm e t el l y ou thati t ’ s per fec t l ypos s i bl e t o have a f a ir h e a rin g e ith e r w ith a re p re se n tativ e o r w ith o u t a repr esent at i ve. It ’s pu rel ya personal choi ce of y ou rs . It– so y o u h a v e tw o c h o ice s to d a y . Y o u c a n e ith e r c h o o se to p roc ee d tod ayw ith the h ea ri n g w ith o u t a rep rese n tat ive o r I coul d gi ve y ou an adj ournm entof 30 day s t o gi ve y ou a chanc e t o geta r epr es ent at i ve. I f y ou choos e t o pr ocee d t oday a n d if I n o tice d u rin g th e h e a rin g th a t th e re a re a n yd o c u m e n ts thatar e mi s s i ng fr om y ourr ecor d thatI need, I can t ake s t eps th ro u g h m yo f

f ic e to g e t th o s e a n d a d d th e m to y o u r f ile . A l s o, i f y ou pr ocee d t odayand fors om e r eas on y ou ar e not h a p p yw ith th e [ d ]e c isio n th a t I m a k e , y o u w o u ld b e f re e to appea l that[d] eci s i on and y ou coul d geta r epr es ent at i ve at th a tt i me i f

y o u s o c h o s e [ s i c ] . So wha ti s y o u r[ d ] e c i s i o n ? D o y o u w a n t to p ro c e e d o r d o y o u w a n t to h a v e a c h a n c e to geta r epr es ent at i ve? C L M T : W el l , I ’ m goi ng t o pr ocee d. A L J : Y o u w a n tt o p r o c e e d t o d a y? C L M T : Y eah. A p p . a t 2 6 -2 8 . O r di nar i l y , the for egoi ng excha nge w oul d be s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h thata cl ai m ant w aivin g h er righ t t o co u n sel d u ri n g an A L J h ea ri n g ac ted k n o w ing lyan d intell igen tl y . In thi s cas e, how ever , V i var i t as l at ert es t i fi ed atthe hea r i ng thats he s uffe r ed fr om m ent al lim ita tio n s , a lth o u g h th e e x te n t o f h e r l im ita tio n s w a s u n c le a r a t th e tim e o f h e r t e s tim o n y . W hen the A L J as ked V i var i t as t o des cr i be herm ent al l i m i t at i ons , s he t es t i fi ed: W e ll, I ’m a littl e s lo w e r t h a n o th e r p e o p le , b u t I g e t – m a n a g e to g e t a ro u n d .8

T h a t’s w h a t itis. I d o n ’t – d o th in g s th e w a y , y o u k n o w , o th e r p e o p le w o u ld d o . I’ m a littl e s lo w a t le a rn in g th in g s a n d it’ s a lw a y s b e e n th a t w a y . T hat’ s w hyI w ent t o special ed[.] , bu tI w ent t o regularhigh scho ol because th e yh a d a sp e c ial p ro g ra m f o r th a t. * * * A tni ght , I w ent , s o i tw as l i ke a s peci al thi ng forthe s peci al ed[. ] t o put them in reg u lar [sic]. A pp. at44. I ndeed, V i var i t as ’ t es t i m onypr om pt ed the A L J t o r eques ta cons ul t at i ve exami nat i on t o as s es s heri nt el l ectual and ps y chol ogi cal condi t i on. D r . C andel a des cr i bed the resul t s of t hat exam i nati on as fol l ow s: [V i var i t as ] obt ai ned a V erbal I Q s cor e of 72, w hi ch has a r ange of 68 t o 78 V erbal I Q poi nt s atthe 95th per centconfi dence l evel . She al s o obt ai ned a P e rf o rm a n c e IQ sc o re o f

6 7 , w ith a ra n g e o f

6 2 to 7 6 P e rf

o rm a n c e IQ p o in ts a t th e 9 5 th p e rc e n t co n f id e n c e lev e l. T h e se tw o sc o re s y ield e d a F u ll S c a le IQ sc o re o f

6 7 w ith a ra n g e o f

6 4 to 7 2 F u ll S c a le I Q p o in ts a t th e 9 5 th per centconfi dence l evel . T he i ndi cat i on her e i s thatherr ange of abi l i t i es a re w ith in th e lo w b o rd e rl in e ra n g e . C le a rl yD a w n h a s le a rn in g d if f ic u ltie s . H ers cor es r anged f

r om a l ow of 3 t o a hi gh of 9, i ndi cat i ng the pr es ence of sca tt er. T h ere w as a lso sc att er o n an intr a-test ba sis. G en era l vo ca b u lary w as l i m i t ed as w el l as abs tr actr eas oni ng. A pp . at20 5. A l tho ug h itw as an op en q uest i on du ri ng the h eari ng w hetherV i vari t as’ m ental l i m i t at i on s quali fi ed h er for di sabi l i tyben efi t s, her t est i m on yregar ding t ho se l i m i t at i ons , part i cul ar l yw hen the s ubs equenteval uat i on byD r . C andel a s uppor t ed her t es t i m ony , s houl d have gi ven the A L J conce rns as t o w hetherherexpl anat i on t o V i var i t as of herr i ghtt o couns el w as s uffi ci entand w hetherV i var i t as ’ w ai verof thatr i ghtw as k n o w in g a n d in tellig e n t. I n addi t i on t o t he val i di tyof the w ai verof couns el pr obl em, ther e w as a s econd9

p rob lem w ith the A L J’s h an d li n g o f th e c ase in tha t she fa il ed to d ev elop the re co rd adequa t el yon the ques t i on of w hetherV i var i t as s at i s fi ed the r equi r ement s forl i s t ed i m pairm ent 12. 05 (C ), and w hetherthis fai l ure r esul t ed in cl ear pr ej ud i ce t o V i vari t as’ dis abil i tycl ai m . T he A L J foun d thatV i vari t as di d n ot s at i sfyl i st i ng 12 . 05 (C ) because “[s ] he does nothave a m ent al di s or derthati s s ever e enough t o i m pos e s i gni fi cantw or kr el at ed l i m i t at i ons of func t i on thatar e s at i s fi ed bythe r equi r ement s of m edi cal l i s t i ng 1 2 .0 5 (C ) .” A p p . a t 1 7 . T he C om m i s s i oner ’ s r egul at i ons pr ovi de the fol l ow i ng w i th r es pectt o l i s t ed im p airm en t 12 . 0 5 (C ): 1 2 .0 5 . M e n tal re tar d a tio n : M e n tal re tar d a tio n re f e rs to sig n if

ica n tly s ubaver age ge ner al i nt el l ectual funct i oni ng w i th defi ci t s i n adapt i ve f u n c tio n in g in iti a llym a n if e ste d d u rin g th e d e v e lo p m e n tal p e rio d ; i . e. , the evi dence demonstr at es ors uppor t s ons etof the i m pai r m entbefor e age 22. T h e re q u ire d lev e l o f

se v e rityf

o r th is d iso rd e r is m e t w h e n th e re q u ire m e n ts i n A , B , C , orD ar e s at i s fi ed. * * * C . A val i d verbal , per form ance , orful l s cal e I Q of 60 thr ough 70 and a phy s i cal orot herm ent al i m pai r m enti m pos i ng an addi t i onal and s i gni fi cant w o rk -r e la te d lim ita tio n o f f u n c tio n . . . . 20 C . F. R . Pt . 404, Subpt . P, A pp. 1, § 12. 05( C ) . I n otherw or ds , “[t ] o m eetthe re q u ire m e n ts o f

§ 1 2 .0 5 [ (C )] a c laim a n t m u st i) h a v e a v a lid v e rb a l, pe rf o rm a n c e o r f

u ll s cal e I Q of 60 thr ough 70, i i ) have a phy s i cal orotherm ent al i m pai r m enti m pos i ng addi t i onal and s i gni fi cantw or k- r el at ed l i m i t at i ons of func t i on, and i i i ) s how thatthe10

m ent al r et ar dat i on w as i ni t i al l ym ani fes t ed dur i ng the deve l opm ent al per i od ( befor e age 2 2 ). ” M ark le v. B arn h art, 3 2 4 F . 3 d 1 8 2 , 1 8 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). V ivarit as sa ti sfied the f ir st an d sec o n d req u ir em en ts. W ith resp ec t t o h er IQ s cor es , D r . C andel a r eport ed: [V i var i t as ] obt ai ned a V erbal I Q s cor e of 72, w hi ch has a r ange of 68 t o 78 V erbal I Q poi nt s atthe 95th per centconfi dence l evel . She al s o obt ai ned a P e rf o rm a n c e IQ sc o re o f

6 7 , w ith a ra n g e o f

6 2 to 7 6 P e rf

o rm a n c e IQ p o in ts a t th e 9 5 th p e rc e n t co n f id e n c e lev e l. T h e se tw o sc o re s y ield e d a F u ll S c a le IQ sc o re o f

6 7 w ith a ra n g e o f

6 4 to 7 2 F u ll S c a le I Q p o in ts a t th e 9 5 th p e rc e n t co n f

id e n c e lev e l. A p p . at 20 5 . In a d d it ion , the A L J fo u n d that V ivarit as’ a sthm a a n d m igraine s w ere “severe” pursuant t o 2 0 C . F . R . § 4 16 . 92 0, w hich descri bes “severe i m pairm ent” as “anyi m pai r m entorcombi nat i on of i m pai r m ent s w hi ch s i gni fi cant l yl i m i t s y ourphy s i cal o r m e n ta l a b ility to d o b a s ic w o rk a c tiv itie s .” 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 1 6 .9 2 0 (c ). T he A L J , how ever , di d notaddr es s w hetherthe r ecor d s uppor t ed a f i ndi ng thatt he ons etof V i var i t as ’ m ent al i m pai r m ent s occurr ed bef or e age 22 as s peci fi ed i n i m pai r m ent 12. 05( c) . See app. at15- 23. A cl ai m ants eeki ng benef i t s pur s uantt o l i s t ed i m pai r m ent 12. 05( C ) has the bur den of pr ovi di ng evi dence s how i ng thatthe cl ai m ed i m pai r m ent comm ence d dur i ng the deve l opm ent al per i od. See W i l l i ams v. Sul l i van, 970 F. 2d 1178, 1186 ( 3d C i r . 1992) . I n M arkl e v. B arnhart , 324 F. 3d 182, the C om m i s s i onerdeni ed benef i t s t o t he cl ai m antbas ed i n parton a fi ndi ng thatthe cl ai m antdi d nots at i s fythe r equi r ement s forl i s t ed i m pai r m ent12. 05( C ) . W e r ever s ed the C om m i s s i oner ’ s deni al of benef i t s , how ever , beca us e the A L J had fa i l ed t o addr es s w hetherthe cl ai m ant ’ s m ent al11

r et ar dat i on had comm ence d dur i ng the deve l opm ent al per i od and w e w ant ed t o gi ve the A L J the o pp ortun i tyt o fu rther dev el op the record and add res s the is sue i n the fi rs t i ns t ance . I d. at189. W e found thatthe cl ai m anthad ful fi l l ed herbur den of pr oduct i on s uffi ci ent l yt o w arr antr emand becaus e the medi cal evi dence di d nots ugges tthat r et ar dat i on or i gi nat ed af t erage 21, thatthe cl ai m anthad educ at i onal pr obl ems, i ncl udi ng t aki ng s peci al educa t i on cour s es thr ough ni nth gr ade, dr oppi ng outi n the t enth gr ade, and struggli ng t o o btai n a G E D , and that he had no tw orked f or atl east15 y ears . Id. W e al so o b serv ed that “the ev iden ce b ef o re the A L J [w as] c o n sist en t w ith a f ind ing that M ark le’s m ent al condi t i on r emai ned cons t antfr om chi l dhood thr ough the pr es ent , the onl ychange bei ng thathi s phy s i cal condi t i on w or s ened a s the y ear s w entby , ” and that“[t ] her e i s no evi dence of a l ong w or k hi s t ory. . . orof a tr aumat i c eve ntthatm i ghthave i nduced m e n ta l r e ta rd a tio n a t a la te r s ta g e o f lif e .” Id . a t 1 8 8 -8 9 . H er e, as w as true of the cl ai m anti n M arkl e, V i var i t as pr oduced e vi dence s ugges t i ng thathercl ai m ed ment al i m pai r m enthad an ons etbefor e s he r eac hed the age of 22. D ur i ng the hea r i ng, V i var i t as t es t i fi ed thats he att ended s peci al educa t i on cl as s es w hi l e i n hi gh s chool and the A L J acknow l edged i n herdeci s i on thatV i var i t as “att ended s p e c ia l e d u c a tio n c la s s f o r m a n yy e a rs b e g in n in g w ith g ra m m a r s c h o o l.” A p p . a t 1 8 . W hen the A L J as ked V i var i t as t o des cr i be herm ent al l i m i t at i ons i n gr eat erdet ai l , s he t es t i fi ed thats he w as “a l i t t l e s l ow erthan otherpeopl e” a nd “a l i t t l e s l ow atl earni ng thi ngs , ” and that“i t ’ s al w ay s been thatw ay . ” A pp. at44. A s forthe medi cal evi dence ,12

D r . C andel a’ s r eportdoes noti ndi cat e w hetherV i var i t as ’ i nt el l ectual l i m i t at i ons began du ri ng her dev el op m ental peri od . S ee app . 20 4-10. D uri ng oral argum ent before us, V i var i t as ’ couns el ar gued thati f he ha d r epr es ent ed herdur i ng the hea r i ng, he w oul d have re q u e ste d p ro d u c tio n o f h e r e d u c a tio n a l re c o rd s to se e w h e th e r h e r IQ tes t sc o re s p rio r to age 2 2 sat i sfi ed the severi tyrequi rem ents of li st i ng 12 . 05 (C ). T he A L J di d n ot r equ est V i var i t as ’ educa t i onal r ecor ds , nordi d s he s eek a cont empora rym edi cal opi ni on con cerni ng the o nsetage o f V i vari t as’ cl ai m ed m ental i m pairm ents . Forthes e r eas ons , w e conc l ude thatV i var i t as di d notw ai ve herr i ghtt o couns el dur i ng the A L J hear i ng know i ngl yand i nt el l i gent l yand thats he cl ear l ys uffe r ed pr ej udi ce as a r es ul tof herl ack of couns el . A ccor di ngl y , w e ar e cons tr ai ned t o r ever s e the D i s tr i ct C o u rt o rd e r o f

A u g u st 1 1 , 2 0 0 6 , af

f irm in g th e C o m m iss io n e r’s d e n ial o f b e n e f its to V i var i t as and t o r emand t he mat t ert o the D i s tr i ctC our tt o r emand t he mat t ert o the C om m i s s i onert o devel op the r ecor d fur ther . See I N S v. O r l ando V entur a, 537 U . S. 12, 16, 123 S. C t . 353, 355 ( 2002) . A s a pr act i cal m att er , w e expe ctthatV i var i t as , w ho has appea l ed hercas e w i th t he as s i s t ance of hi ghl yexper i ence d couns el pr i m ar i l yon the gr ound thats he w as pr ej udi ced a s a r es ul tof herear l i erl ack of r epr es ent at i on, w i l l have couns el on r emand, i n w hi ch eve ntthe err or s thatw e have des cr i bed undoubt edl yw i l l be a d d re s s e d a d e q u a te ly. If V iv a ri ta s d e c id e s , h o w e v e r, t o p ro c e e d w ith o u t c o u n s e l, a cour s e thatw e hope s he does notfol l ow , the A L J s houl d expl ai n herr i ghtt o have c ouns el and couns el ’ s avai l abi l i tyi n ful l det ai l and, i f V i var i t as i ns i s t s on pr ocee di ng pr o s e, t he13

A L J s houl d devel op the r ecor d w i th r es pectt o the ques t i on of w hetherV i var i t as s at i s fi ed th e re q u ir e m e n ts o f

lis te d im p a ir m e n t 1 2 .0 5 (C ). T h e o rd e r o f

A u g u st 1 1 , 2 0 0 6 , w ill b e re v e rse d a n d th e m a tter w ill b e re m a n d e d to the D i s tr i ctC our tt o r emand t he mat t erfur thert o the C om m i s s i onerforfur ther pr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th t hi s opi ni on.