NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Na me: 12a1238n.06
No. 12-1217
UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT
L AURA B . EDDY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. COMMI SSI ONER OF SOCI AL SECURI TY, Def endant- Appellee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE E ASTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

BEF ORE: NORRI S, GI BB ONS, and DON AL D, Circuit J udg es.

PER CURI AM: L aura B. Eddy appea ls the district court’s judgme nt aff irming the denial of her a pplications for disability

insurance benef

its and supplemental sec urity income bene fits.
I n 2004, Eddy filed applications for disability insurance benef its and supplemental secur ity income benef

its, alleg ing that she beca

me disabled in J anuar

y 2000, when she was thirty y ear s old. After the Soc i al Security Administration denied the applications, Eddy reque sted a hear ing. An administrative law judge (AL J ) conduct ed an evidentiar y hear ing and denied Eddy relief

. The Appea ls Council vaca

ted the AL J ’s decision and r emande d with instruction to consider additional

ev idence , including a psy cholog ical evalua tion of Eddy conducte d by Dr. J

. Keith Os t i en o n September 10, 2007. On rema nd, t h e AL J deter

mined that Eddy was not disabled prior to September 10, 2007, but that she became disabled on t h at date. The Appeals C ouncil declined to revie w the ca se.No. 12-1217

Eddy v . Comm’r of Soc. Se c. Eddy soug ht revie w in the district co u rt. The mag istrate judge rec ommended g ranting
summary judgme nt to the Commi ssioner of Social Security

. Over Eddy ’s objections, t he district
court adopted the rec ommendation and enter ed judgme nt in favor of the Commi ssioner. On appea l, Eddy makes the following arg uments: (1) the AL J err ed by failing to deter mine an onset date for the
psy cholog ical condition that rende red he r disabled; (2) the AL J err ed by deter mining that she was
not disabled on the basis of her psy cholog ical condition prior to September 10, 2007; (3) the AL J

err ed by failing to g ive proper weig ht to the opinion of Dr. Marta Elody , a trea ting psy chiatrist; and (4) the A L J err ed by concluding that she did not meet the re g ulatory listi ng for menta l retar dation.
“Our revie w of the AL J ’s decision is limit ed to whether the AL J applied the corr ect leg al standards and whether the findi ng s of t he AL J are supported by substa n t i al ev i d ence.” Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. , 581 F.3d 399, 405 (6th Cir. 2009). “The substantial-evidenc e standard is met if a re asonable mind might acce pt the relevant evidence as adequate t o support a conc lusion.” Id.
at 4 0 6 (i nterna l quotation marks omitted). “We g ive de novo revie w to the district court’s conclusions on ea ch issue.” Id. Despite Eddy ’s arg ument to the contra ry , the AL J did deter

mine an o n s et date for the
psy cholog ical condition that rende red h er d i s ab l ed. The date identified by the AL J was September 10, 2007. Fur ther, substantial evidence supported the AL J ’s conc lusion that Eddy was
not disabled prior to that date. Eddy ’s medical rec ords and assessments g ener ally demonstrated that, prior to Septe mber 10, 2007, she had normal psy cholog ical functioning in severa l are as, with only mild to modera te limit ations in othe rs, and trea tment ha d stabiliz ed or improved cer tain aspec ts of her condition. The AL J rea sonably g ave littl e weig ht to the most signific ant piece of evidenc e to the -2-No. 12-1217

Eddy v . Comm’r of Soc. Se c. contra ry , the mental residual functional capa city assessment perf ormed by Dr. Elody in July 2007, beca use Elody ’s conclusion that Eddy had more signific ant limit ations was not adequa tely explained

or supported by Eddy ’s trea tment rec ords. See Blakley , 581 F.3d at 406. I t was also rea sonable for the AL J not to consider Dr. Ostien’s assessment of E d d y ’s p sy cholog ical limit ations when deter mining whether she wa s d isabled prior to September 10, 2007, beca use Ostien had not examined Eddy prior to that date, and his assessment expressed no opinion conce rning her previous limit ations. Finally , substantial evidenc e supported the AL J ’s conclusion that E d d y did not meet the

re gulatory listi ng for mental reta rdation. To meet the listi ng , a claimant must show, amo n g o t h er things, the o n s et o f “sig nificantly subaver ag e g ener al intellectual functioning with defic its in ad aptive functioning ” befor e ag e twenty -two. See Foster v. Halter , 279 F.3d 348, 354 (6th Cir. 2001) (quoting 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1 , § 1 2 .05). Eddy failed to make the require d showing beca

use the psy cholog ical evalua tions and other medical evidenc e in the rec ord did not addre ss the rele vant period, and, in any case , Eddy was never diag nosed as being mentally reta rded.
See id

. at 3 5 5. The evidenc e relied on by Eddy — namely , that she attended specia l education classes and quit sc hool a fter the eig hth gr ade — is insuffic ient to unde rmine the AL J ’s conclusion that she did not meet the reg ulatory listi ng for mental reta rdation beca

use Eddy did not show that her enrollment in specia l educa tion classes or her failure to continue her schoo l ing wer e due to her having signific antly

subaver ag e g ener al intellectual f unctioning.
Acc ording ly , we a ffirm the district c ourt’s judg ment.

-3-