2009 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 3-24-2009 

# J o seph H arrold 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 . 08-3451

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_2009

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 2009 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 " J os ep h H arr o ld v

. C omm S oc i al S e c urity " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1698. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1698NOT 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. 08- 3451

____________ J OS E P H A. HAR RO L D, A ppel l ant

v. M I CH AE L J . AS T RU E C o m m i s s i o n e ro f

S o c i a l S e c u r i ty,

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 2- 07- cv- 01284) M agi s tr at e J udge: H onor abl e A m yR eynol ds H ay

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 3, 2009 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , S L O V IT E R a n d H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudges . ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 24, 2009)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge .2

J os eph H arr ol d appea l s the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entaff i r m i ng the Co mmi s s i o n e r ’ s d e n i a l o f h i s c l a i m f

o rCh i l d h o o d Di s a b i l i tyI n s u r a n c e Be n e f i t s ( CDI B) and Suppl ement al Secur i tyI ncome ( SSI) under§§ 202( d) , 223, and 1614( a) ( 3) ( A ) of the S o c i a l S e c u r i tyAc t . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I. B e c a u se w e w rite e x c lu siv e lyf o r th e p a rties , w e w ill re c o u n t o n lyth o se f a c ts es s ent i al t o ourdeci s i on. H arr ol d i s a hi gh s chool gr aduat e w ho att ended s peci al educa t i on and voca t i onal cl as s es . H e has no pas tr el evantw or k exper i ence and cl ai m s thathe has been di s abl ed sinc e b irth b ec au se o f a tt en ti o n d ef ici t hyp era cti v ityd isord er (A D H D ) an d A sp erg er’s d i s o r d e r , a typ e o f

h i g h - f u n c t i o n i n g a u t i s m. A ft erH arr ol d’ s appl i cat i ons forC D I B and SSI w er e deni ed i ni t i al l y , he w as gr ant ed a he ar i ng befor e A L J N or m a C annon. T he A L J deni ed H arr ol d’ s cl ai m , fi ndi ng th a t h e w a s n o t d isa b led b e c a u se h e h a d th e c a p a c ityto p e rf o rm lig h t w o rk , w ith m odi fi cat i ons i ncl udi ng: a s i t/ s t and opt i on, l ow s tr es s , and entry - l evel w or k w i th l i m i t ed cont actw i th other s . T he A ppeal s C ounci l deni ed H arr ol d’ s r eques tforr evi ew , and the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e W estern D istri ct of P en n sy lvan ia af

firm ed the A L J’s d e c is io n , f

in d in g th a t th e re w a s s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt th e A L J ’s d e te rm in a tio n . H a rro ld f

iled th is tim e lya p p e a l. II.3

H arr ol d fi r s tcl ai m s thatthe A L J fai l ed t o anal y ze hi s cl ai m forC D I B underthe p ro p e r le g a l sta n d a rd . H e a lso a rg u e s th a t th e A L J e rre d a s a m a tter o f law b yf a ili n g to d e ter m in e w h e th e r h e sa tisf ied L istin g 1 1 2 .0 5 D (M e n tal R e tar d a tio n ). F in a lly , H a rro ld claim s tha t th e A L J erred in rejec ti n g the o p inion s o f a co n su lt ati v e e x am iner (D r. M cK inley ) an d ac ce p ti n g the o p inion s o f a rev iew ing ex am iner (D r. Jam es). A . H a rro ld a p p lied f

o r C D IB a n d S S I o n Ju n e 1 0 , 2 0 0 5 , the d a yb e f o re h is e ig h tee n th b ir th d a y . B yth e tim e o f th e h e a ri n g , h o w e v e r, H a rr o ld h a d re a c h e d a g e n in e te e n . H a rro ld c laim s th a t th e C h ild L istin g s s h o u ld h a v e b e e n a p p lied to h im b e c a u se h is appl i cat i on dat e pr ece ded hi s ei ght eenth bi r thday . W e di s agr ee. T h e re g u latio n s s p e c if

ica llysta te: th e C o m m iss io n e r w ill “ n e v e r u se th e listin g s in partB t o eval uat e i ndi vi dual s w ho ar e age 18 orol der . ” 20 C . F. R . §§ 404. 1525( b) ( 2) and 416. 925( b) ( 2) . B eca us e the r egul at i ons ar e phr as ed i n the pr es entt ens e — “ar e” — in ste a d o f

in th e p a st te n se — “ w e re ” — w e a g re e w ith th e C o m m iss io n e r th a t th e A d u lt L ist ing s o f P art A w ere ap p li ca b le i n this case . A cc o rdin g ly , w e re ject H arro ld’s th re sh o ld a rg u m e n t. B . H arr ol d nextcl ai m s thatthe A L J err ed byfi ndi ng thathe fa i l ed t o s at i s fyL i s t i ng 1 1 2 .0 0 D (C h ild M e n tal R e tar d a tio n ). In su p p o rt o f th is a rg u m e n t, H a rro ld re lies h e a v ily4

upon t es t i ng atC hi l dr en’ s H os pi t al i n 1994, w hen he w as s i x y ear s ol d, i ndi cat i ng a p e r f o r ma n c e I Q o f

6 9 . Ha r r o l d c l a i ms th a tth i s t e s ts c o r e s a t i s f i e s L i s t i n g 1 1 2 . 0 5 D. H a rr o ld ’s a rg u m e n t m a yh a v e p e rs u a s iv e f o rc e if h is IQ te s t w e re re m o te ly cu rr e n t. A s th e re g u latio n s n o te: “ IQ tes t re su lts m u st a lso b e su f f icie n tlyc u rre n t f

o r a c c u ra te a ss e ss m e n t u n d e r 1 1 2 .0 5 . . . IQ tes t re su lts o b tain e d b e f o re a g e 7 a re c u rre n t f

o r 2 y e a rs if th e te s te d IQ is le s s th a n 4 0 a n d 1 y e a r i f a t 4 0 o r a b o v e .” 2 0 C .F .R . § 1 1 2 .0 0 (D )( 1 0 ). T h u s, u n d er the reg u lat ion s, H arro ld’s low IQ testw as v ali d u n ti l 19 9 5 , a d ec ad e b ef o re he fil ed h i s appli cat i on s for benef i t s. A p art fro m the in ap p li ca b il ityo f H arro ld’s 1 9 9 4 IQ test , o u r rev iew o f th e re co rd l eads t o the conc l us i on thatther e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence t o demonstr at e thatH arr ol d does nots at i s fyL i s t i ng 112. 05D . H arr ol d gener al l ydi d w el l i n hi gh s chool , achi eved the r ank of Eagl e Scout , earned hi s di pl om a, enr ol l ed i n a comm uni tycol l ege pr ogr am, and o b tain e d p a rt-tim e e m p lo ym e n t. A c c o rd in g ly , w e re jec t H a rro ld ’s s e c o n d a rg u m e n t. C . Fi nal l y , H arr ol d ar gues thatthe A L J err ed i n gi vi ng gr eat erw ei ghtt o the as s es s m entof the r evi ew i ng s t at e age ncyps y chol ogi s t( D r . J ames) than t o thatof the cons ul t at i ve exa m i ner( D r . M cK i nl ey ) . T he r es ol ut i on of thi s i s s ue depe nds upon w h ethe r th ere w as su b stan ti al ev iden ce to su p p o rtthe A L J’s find ing that D r. M cK inley ’s as s es s m entw as i ncons i s t entw i th the bodyof herr eportand the r ecor d evi dence c o n s i d e r e d i n i t s e n t i r e ty.5

D r. M c K in ley co m p lete d a n a ss e ss m e n t f o rm th a t in d ica ted th a t H a rro ld ’s a b ili ty t o under s t and, r emem berand ca r r youtdet ai l ed i ns truct i ons , and t o m ake j udgm ent s on s i m pl e w or k- r el at ed dec i s i ons w as m arkedl yr es tr i ct ed. She bas ed thes e fi ndi ngs on the fac tthatH arr ol d neede d s peci al cl as s es dur i ng hi s s chool i ng. D r . M cK i nl eyal s o found thatH arr ol d i s extr emel yl i m i t ed i n hi s abi l i tyt o i nt er actappr opr i at el yw i th the publ i c, s upervi s or s and co- w or ker s and t o r es pond appr opr i at el yt o w or k pr es s ur e. A fter rev iew ing D r. M cK inley ’s rep o rtan d the m ed ical ev iden ce o f re co rd, D r. J ames c oncl uded thatH arr ol d has m i l d r es tr i ct i ons of dai l yl i vi ng, m oder at e di ffi cul t i es w i th s oci al funct i oni ng, and moder at e di ffi cul t i es i n m ai nt ai ni ng conce ntr at i on, per s i s t ence , orpace . D r . J ames found thats om e of D r . M cK i nl ey ’ s opi ni ons w er e “a n over es t i m at e of the s ever i tyof the cl ai m ant ’ s funct i onal l i m i t at i ons ” bec aus e the s t at ement s “conc erni ng [H arr ol d’ s ] abi l i t i es i n the ar eas of m aki ng per s onal and s oci al a d ju s tm e n ts a n d o th e r w o rk re la te d a c tiv itie s a re n o t c o n s is te n t w ith th e o th e r e v id e n c e . .

. . ” (R . 1 5 1 ). T he r ecor d demonstr at es thatthe A L J gave due cons i der at i on t o the compet i ng v iew s o f D rs. M cK inleyan d Jam es. W h il e c ertainlyn o t r eq u ir ed to h av e sid ed w ith D r. J ames, the A L J di d noterri n doi ng s o forthe r eas ons s he art i cul at ed atpage f ourof her o p inion . (R . 1 7 ).6

B eca us e the A L J di d noterri n di s count i ng D r . M cK i nl ey ’ s opi ni on, s he w as not r equi r ed t o i ncl ude the l i m i t at i ons cl ai m ed byD r . M cK i nl eyi n the hypothet i cal ques t i on p o se d to th e v o c a tio n a l ex p e rt. III . F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.