FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT NOVEMB ER 23 , 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NOT P UB L I S H]
I N TH E U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 16235

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 3
- 0 0 3 0 0
- CV
- O C- 1 0
- G RJ C H A R E S S A D O U G L A S , for T y r o n e P a tte r s o n J r ., P la in tif f
- A p p e lla n t,
v ersu s C O M M I S S I O N E R O F S O C I A L S E C U R I T Y , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A p p ealfr om th e U n i te d S tate s D i st ri ct C ou rt f o r t he M i ddl e D i s t r i c t o f Fl o r i da

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 23, 2005) B efo re B L A C K , W IL S O N a n d C O X , C i rcu i t J u d g es. W IL S O N , C i rc u i t Ju d ge: T yro n e P att erso n , Jr. , a m i n o r ch i l d , th ro u g h h i s m o th er, C h aressa D o u g l as, ap p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’s o rd eraf firm in g th e C o m m issio n ero f S o cial S ec u rity’s2

d e c is io n to d e n yh is ap p lic a tio n f o rS u p p le m e n ta l S e c u r ityI n c o m e d is ab ility benefi t s. “ O ur [de nov o] re vi ew of the C om m i ss i on er ’ s dec i si on i s l i m i t ed t o an i nqui ry i nt o w he the rthe r e i s s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e t o s upportthe f i ndi ngs of

the C om m i ss i on er , and w hether the corre ctl egal st andards w er e app l i ed. ” W i l son v. B a rn h a rt , 28 4 F
. 3d 12 19 , 12 21 (11th C i r. 20 02 ) ( per c uri am ). S i nce s ub st ant i al
e vi de nc e s how e d tha tP a tt e r s on di d note xhi bi t“ m a rke d” l i m i t a t i ons i n tw o or
m ore dom ai ns, or “ extre m e” l i m i t at i on s i n o ne do m ai n, the A dm i ni stra t i ve L aw J udge c orr e c t l yc onc l ude d tha thi s i m pa i rm e nt s di d notf unc t i ona l l ye qua l a ny l i s t e d i mp a i rme n t . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e a f f i rm. W e a r e notpe r s ua de d byP a tt e r s on’ s a r gum e nttha tthe A L Je rr e d byf a i l i ng t o c ons i de rhi s A D H D i n c om bi na t i on w i th hi s othe ri m pa i rm e nt s . D ur i ng the
s e que nt i a l e va l ua t i on, the A L Jc ons i de r e d P a tt e r s on’ s i m pa i rm e nt s i n c om bi na t i on
w he n he w a s a s s e s s i ng w he the rP a tt e r s on m e t , e qua l e d, orf unc t i ona l l ye qua l e d a l i s t e d i m pa i rm e nt . S pe c i f i c a l l y , the A L Js t a t e d, “ c l a i m a nt ’ s c om bi na t i on of i m pa i rm e nt s doe s notm e e torm e di c a l l ye qua l the c r i t e r i as e tf orth f ora ny i m pa i rm e nti n the l i s t i ngs . ” I ti s c l e a rf r om the A L J ’ s s t a t e m e nt s tha the
c o n s id e r e d P a tte r s o n ’s im p a irm e n ts in c o m b in a tio n . See W heelerv. H

ec kler , 784 F . 2d 10 73 , 10 76 (11th C i r. 19 86 ) ( per c uri am ). P a tt e r s on’ s a r gum e nttha tthe A L Jf a i l e d t o r e f

ut e the opi ni ons of

tw o, non-3

e x a m in in g S o c ia l S e c u r ityA d m in is tr a tio n p s y c h o lo g is ts is s im ila r lyu n p e r s u a s iv e . B o th p s y c h o l o g i s t s f

o u n d th a tP a tt e r s o n h a d “ l e s s th a n m a rk e d ” l i m i t a t i o n s i n two a r e a s o f f u n c tio n in g a n d “m a rk e d ” lim ita tio n s in o n e a r e ao f f u n c tio n in g . Ho we v e r , th e r e g u l a t i o n s r e q u i r e th a tac l a i m a n th a v e “ m a rk e d ” l i m i t a t i o n s i n two d o m a in s o ra n “e x tr e m e ” lim ita tio n in o n e d o m a in
. See 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 1 6 .9 2 6 a ( d )
. T h e r e f o r e , th e ire v a lu a tio n s d o n o t s u p p o rt af in d in g th a t P a tte r s o n ’s im p a irm e n ts f u n c tio n a llye q u a le d alis te d im p a irm e n t. P a tte r s o n ’s f

in a l a r g u m e n t, th a t h e r e c e iv e d as u b s e q u e n t a w a r d o f b e n e f its b a s e d o n th e s am e im p a irm e n ts d e m o n s tr a te s th a t th e A L Je rr e d in e v a lu a tin g h is i m pa i rm e nt s , a l s o f

a i l s . “ W e r e vi e w the de c i s i on of the A L Ja s t o w he the rthe cl ai m antw as ent i t l ed t o b enef i t s duri ng a s peci fi c per i od of t i m e, w hi ch peri od w as nece ss ar i l y pri or t o the dat e of the A L J’ s dec i si on . ” W i l son v. Apf

el , 179 F
. 3d 1 2 7 6 , 1 2 7 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . T h e s u b s e q u e n t a w a r d o f b e n e f its i ndi c a t e d tha tP a tt e r s on w a s t o be gi n r e c e i vi ng S S I di s abi l i tybe ne f i t s a s of N o v e m b e r1 , 2 0 0 2 , ay e a ra n d f iv e m o n th s a f

te rth e d a te o f

th e A L J ’s d e c is io n . A subsequentaw ar d o f benefi t s i s i rr el evantt o thi s c as e. Inst ea d, i ti nd i ca t es that P a tt e r s on’ s c ondi t i on de t e r i or a t e d a f t e rthe A L J ’ s de c i s i on t o the poi nttha tby N ove m be r1, 2002, hi s c ondi t i on w a s i n f a c tdi s abl i ng. AF F I RME D.