2005 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 4-6-2005 

# B uddingt on 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 . 04-2544

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_2005

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 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " B udd in g t on v

. C omm S oc i al S e c ur ity " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1390. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1390NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E 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 C as e N o: 04- 2544 Y V O N N E B U D D IN G T O N , O /B /O J AM AL S I NGLET ARY A ppel l ant v. CO M M I SS I ON ER O F S OC I AL SECU RI TY

O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey D i s t r i ctC our tN o. : C i v. N o. 02- 1280 D i stri ctJudg e: T he H on orabl e D i ckinson R . D ebev ois e

Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o L A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 31, 2005 B e f o re : A L IT O , S M IT H , a n d F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: A pr i l 6, 2005) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge . Y vonne B uddi ngt on, on behal f of he rs on, appea l s fr om the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der aff i r m i ng t he fi nal deci s i on of the C om m i s s i onerof Soci al Secur i t ycea s i ng the Suppl ement al Secur i t yI ncome ( “SSI ”) benef i t s aw ar ded t o hers on underT i t l e X V I of the2

S o c ia l S e c u ri ty A c t. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . § 4 0 5 (g ). A ppel l at e j ur i s di ct i on exi s t s under28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urr evi ew “i s i dent i cal t o t hatof the D istri ct C o u rt , n am elyto d eterm ine w h ethe r th ere is sub stan ti al ev iden ce to su p p o rt t he C om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on. ” P l um m erv. Apf el , 1 8 6 F .3 d 4 2 2 , 4 2 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). S ub st anti al evidence is “m ore than a m ere s ci nti l l a. Itm eans such rel evan tevidence as a r eas onabl e mi nd m i ghtacc eptas adequa t e t o s uppor ta conc l us i on. ” R i char ds on v. P er al es , 4 0 2 U . S . 3 8 9 , 4 0 1 (19 7 1 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted). B uddi ngt on’ s s on w as bor n pr ematur el yi n J anuary1995 and s uffe r ed fr om s peec h and deve l opm ent al del ay s . I n a dec i s i on dat ed Sept ember11, 1996, i tw as det erm i ned t hatt he chi l d’ s condi t i on equal ed the cr i t er i a of l i s t i ng 111. 09B of A ppendi x 1 of the Soci al Secur i t yr egul at i ons per t ai ni ng t o comm uni cat i on i m pai r m ent s as s oci at ed w i t h a n e u ro lo g ic a l d is o rd e r. See 20 C . F . R . P art40 4, S ub partP , A pp end i x 1 , § 11 1. 09 B . A s a res ult , t he ch i l d w as di sabl ed u nd er the S ocial S ecuri t yA ctand aw arded S S I benefit s. A ft era per i odi c cont i nui ng di s abi l i t yr evi ew w as conduct ed i n l at e 1999, i tw as det erm i ned thatt he chi l d’ s SSI be nefi t s w oul d cea s e bec aus e the chi l d’ s m edi cal condi t i on had i m pr oved. B uddi ngt on r eques t ed r econs i der at i on, butthe A dm i ni s t r at i ve L aw J udge ( “A L J ”) concl uded thatthe chi l d’ s condi t i on no l ongerm etorequal ed the c ri te ri a o f

e ith e r l is tin g § 1 1 1 .0 9 B o r a n ylis te d im p a ir m e n t in A p p e n d ix 1 . See 2 0 C. F . R. § 4 1 6 . 9 2 9 (a). In a tho rou g h o p inion , the D istri ct C o u rtd eterm ined that the A L J’s deci s i on w as s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . B uddi ngt on appea l ed.3

B uddi ngt on cont ends t hatt he A L J err ed i n det erm i ni ng thathers on’ s condi t i on no lo n g e r m e t, m e d ica llye q u a led , o r f u n c tio n a llye q u a led a n im p a irm e n t li ste d in A p p e n d ix 1 . See 20 C . F. R . § 416. 924( a) . R el y i ng on ourdeci s i ons i n C o tterv . H a rr is , 642 F. 2d 700 ( 3d C i r . 1981) , and B u rn e tt v. C o m m ’r o f So c ia l Se c u rity , 2 2 0 F . 2 d 1 1 2 (3d C ir . 2000) , B uddi ngt on as s er t s t hatt he A L J fai l ed ade quat el yt o expl ai n hi s fi ndi ng thather so n ’s c o n d iti o n d id n o t sa tisf yth e c riter ia o f

a n ylisted im p a irm e n t. S h e sp e c if ica lly f a u lts th e A L J f

o r n o t id e n tify in g th e p a rticu lar listin g a p p lica b le to a tten tio n d e f icit h yp e ra c tiv ity d is o rd e r ( “ A D H D ” ) i n § 1 1 2 . O u rr e v i e w e s t a b l i s h e s t h a tt h e A L J c a r e f u l l y r e v i e w e d th e c h i l d ’ s m e d i c a l h i s t o r y, not i ng t hatt he chi l d’ s condi t i on i m pr oved w i th t r eatm entt o t he poi ntthathe s uffe r ed fr om a mi l d t o m oder at e art i cul at or ydel ayw i t h a mi l d t o m oder at e conc om i t ant e x p re ss iv e -re c e p tiv e im p a irm e n t, an d A D H D . D e sp ite th e c h ild ’s m a rk e d im p ro v e m e n t, t he A L J m ethodi cal l ycons i der ed w hetherthe chi l d’ s condi t i on cont i nued t o s at i s fyei ther t he cr i t er i a of l i s t i ng § 111. 09B , underw hi ch he ha d been f ound di s abl ed, orthe var i ous im p airm en ts l ist ed in se cti o n 1 1 2 , w h ich in clud ed A D H D . In f ind ing that the c h il d ’s condi t i on no l ongers at i s fi ed the cr i t er i a of a l i s t ed i m pai r m ent , the A L J acc ount ed fort he c h ild ’s lim itatio n s a n d c re d ited th e o p in io n s o f th e sta te d isa b ili tym e d ica l co n su ltan ts w ho opi ned thatt he chi l d’ s condi t i on, though s ever e, di d notm eetorequal , ei t her m edi cal l yorfunct i onal l y , anyl i s t ed i m pai r m ent . T hi s anal y s i s al l ow s form eani ngful r evi ew cons i s t entw i t h B u rn e tt , 220 F. 3d at121. W e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tthatt heA L J ’ s deci s i on i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence , and w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof th e D istric t C o u rt.