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 1-8-2008 

# G arc i a 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 . 05-5102

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 " G ar c i a v . C omm S oc i al S e c urity " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1790. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1790H o n o rab le L o u is H . P o ll ak , S en ior U n it ed S tat es D istri ct Ju d g e f o r th e E astern * D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT 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. 05- 5102 

### ANNAMA RIE G AR CIA FO R ANT HO NYMA RRERRO ,

Appe l l ant v. CO MM I SS I ON ER

OF SO CI ALSE CU RI TY

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 vi l A ct i on N o. 04- cv- 04840) D i stri ctJudg e: H on orabl e D i ckinson R . D ebev ois e Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber13, 2007 B efor e: SL O V I T E R and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges

PO L L A K , D i s tr i ctJ udge

* ( O pi ni on fi l ed: J anuary8, 2008)

OP I NI ON2

A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge A nn M ar i a G ar ci a, on behal f of he rs on D onnel l A nthonyM arr er o, appea l s the D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r a f f irm in g a d e c isio n o f

th e C o m m iss io n e r o f

th e S o c ial S e c u rity A dm i ni s tr at i on deny i ng M arr er o’ s appl i cat i on forSuppl ement al Secur i tyI ncome ( “SSI ”) u n d e rT i t l e XVI o f

th e S o c i a l S e c u r i tyAc t , 4 2 U. S . C. § § 1 3 8 1

– 8 3 f. Be c a u s e we c o n c l u d e th a tth e Co mm i s s i o n e r ’ s d e c i s i o n i s s u p p o r t e d b ys u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , we a f f i r m. I n D ece m ber2001, G ar ci a fi l ed an appl i cat i on forC hi l d’ s SSI be nefi t s , al l egi ng th a t M a rre ro h a d b e e n d isa b led sin c e N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 1 d u e to a tten tio n d e f icit hyper act i vi tydi s or der( “A D H D ”) , l earni ng di s abi l i t i es , and beha vi or al pr obl ems. T hat a p p lica tio n w a s d e n ied , an d w a s a g a in u p o n re c o n sid e ra tio n . G a rc ia th e n so u g h t de novo r evi ew befor e an A dm i ni s tr at i ve Law J udge. T he A L J hel d a hea r i ng i n A ugus t2003 and then d en ied G arc ia’s ap p li ca ti o n in O ctob er 2 0 0 3 . G arc ia th ere af ter sou g h t r ev iew b ef

o re th e S o c ial S e c u rityA p p e a ls C o u n c il, b u t th e C o u n c il d e n ied th e a p p e a l. U pon exhaus t i ng heradmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es , G ar ci a fi l ed a c om pl ai nts eeki ng r evi ew of the C om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ct of N ew Jer sey . Itaffirm ed the A L J’ s deci si on , and G arci a app eal s t o u s. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overl egal i s s ues pr es ent ed i n an appe al of a D i s tr i ctT h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d s u b je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . § 4 0 5 (g ). 1 W e exe r ci s e appe l l at e j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. 3 C ou rt ’s decis i on affirm i ng the C om m i ssi on er’ s denial of S S I benefit s. A l l en v. Ba rnha rt , 1 417 F. 3d 396, 398 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . W e r evi ew the A L J ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs t o det erm i ne w h e th e r t h e ya re s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . I d. “‘ Subst ant i al evi dence ’ has been d e f in e d a s ‘m o re th a n a m e re sc in til la. It m e a n s s u c h re lev a n t ev id e n c e a s a re a so n a b le m i nd m i ghtacc eptas adequa t e t o s uppor ta conc l us i on. ’ ” R eef er v. B arnh art , 326 F. 3d 376, 379 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( quot i ng R i char ds on v. P er al es , 4 0 2 U .S . 3 8 9 , 4 0 1 (1 9 7 1 )) . “W her e the A L J ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ctar e s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence , w e ar e bound by thos e fi ndi ngs , even i f w e w oul d have de ci ded the fa ctual i nqui rydi ffe r ent l y . ” Fa rg n o li v. Massana ri , 2 4 7 F . 3 d 3 4 , 3 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). T o qual i fyforSSI, a chi l d m us tbe di s abl ed underthe Soci al Secur i tyA ct . T he A c t p ro v id e s th a t a c h ild u n d e r th e a g e o f 1 8 is d isa b led if

h e o r sh e “ h a s a m e d ica lly d eterm inab le ph y sical or m en tal im p airm en t, w h ich re su lt s in m ark ed an d sev ere funct i onal l i m i t at i ons , and w hi ch ca n be expe ct ed t o r es ul ti n death orw hi ch has l as t ed or c a n b e e x p e c te d to la s t f o r a c o n tin u o u s p e ri o d o f n o t le s s th a n 1 2 m o n th s .” 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 3 8 2 c(a )(3)(C )(I ). T he C om m i s s i onerfol l ow s a thr ee- s t ep s equent i al pr oces s i n det erm i ni ng chi l dhood di s abi l i ty , 20 C . F. R . § 416. 924: ( 1) w hetherthe chi l d i s doi ng s ubs t ant i al g ainf u l acti v ity ; ( 2 ) i f n o t, w h ethe r he o r she h as a m ed icall yd eterm inab le sev ere4

i m pai rm ent ; ( 3) i f s o, w hetherthe chi l d’ s s ever e i m pai r m entm eet s , m edi cal l yequal s , or f u n c t i o n a l l ye q u a l s th e s e v e r i tyo f a s e to f c r i t e r i a f

o ra n i mp a i r me n tl i s t e d i n 2 0 C. F . R. §416. 924( d) . I n t hi s cas e, the A L J found that , al though M arr er o w as notdoi ng s ubs t ant i al gai nful act i vi tyand hi s A D H D w as a s ever e i m pai r m ent , hi s condi t i on di d not m eet , m edi cal l yequal , orfunct i onal l yequal the cr i t er i a of a nyof the i m pai r m ent s l i s t ed i n the r egul at i ons . A ccor di ngl y , the A L J concl uded thatM arr er o w as notdi s abl ed under th e A c t. O n appea l , G ar ci a ar gues thatthe A L J fai l ed t o expl ai n how he r eac hed the concl us i on thatM arr er o’ s i m pai r m entdi d notqual i fyas a l i s t ed i m pai r m enti n a manner su f f icie n t to c o m p lyw ith C o tterv . H a rr is , 6 4 2 F .2 d 7 0 0 , r eh’ g deni ed , 650 F. 2d 481 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 8 1 ). W e d isa g re e . W e re q u ire a n A L J to “ f u llyd e v e lo p th e re c o rd a n d e x p lain h is fi ndi ngs , ” B u rn e tte v . C o m m ’r o f So c ia l Se c u rity , 2 2 0 F . 3 d 1 1 2 , 1 1 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ), w h ich is w h at th e A L J d id h ere . H e c o n side red m ed ical rep o rt s filed b yM arrero ’s d o c to rs, e d u c a tio n a l re c o rd s a n d re p o rts f ro m M a rre ro ’s te a c h e rs, a n d re p o rts f ro m sta te ag en cym ed ical co n su lt an ts an d o ther m ed ical sou rce s. H e a lso d rew o n G arc ia’s t es t i m onyatthe hea r i ng i n m aki ng hi s deci s i on. A l l of the evi dence , w i th the exc ept i on of G ar ci a’ s ow n t es t i m ony( w hi ch the A L J found t o be notent i r el ycr edi bl e w hen w eigh ed ag ains t th e re st of the re co rd), sup p o rt ed the A L J’s find ing that M arrero ’s im p airm en t did n o t qu ali fyas a li sted im p airm en t fo r A D H D . In th is co n text, w e a ff irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.