# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 7- 18 47

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Po rch e R. Mi dg y et t

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Co m m is si on er, So ci al Secu rit y Adm in is tra ti on

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Defe nd an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Jo se ph

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 15 , 20 18 Fi le d: Ju ne 18 , 20 18 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, BENTO N, and ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.Po rch e R. Mi dg y et t ap pe al s th e d is tri ct co ur t’s jud gm en t affi rm in g th e 1
C om m is si on er’s de ni al of ch il d’s di sa bi li ty be ne fit s an d su pp le m en ta l se cu rit y in co m e un de r Tit le s II an d XVI of th e So ci al Secu rit y Act. W e affi rm th e jud gm en t of th e d is tri ct co ur t.

On Sep te m

be r 18 , 20 1 2, Mi dg y et t pr ot ect iv el y ap pl ie d fo r ch il d’s in su ran ce be ne fit s ba se d on di sa bi li ty an d fo r su pp le m e n t a l se cu rit y in co m e. Sh e al le ge d di sa bi li ty be gi nn in g on Aug us t 8, 20 09

. In Nov em be r 20 12 th e cl ai m s were de ni ed

. Mi dg y et t re qu es te d a he ari ng , whi ch was he ld be fo re an Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e (“ ALJ”) on Apr il 10 , 20 14

. The is su e at he ari ng was whe th er Mi dg y et t was en ti tl ed
to di sa bl ed ch il d’s in s u r a n c e b en efi ts pu rs ua nt to 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.3 50 (a)( 5)

. The he ari ng in cl ud ed te st im on y fro m Mi dg y et t and fro m an im pa rti al vo cat io na l exp ert

.

The ALJ fo ll owe d th e fiv e-s te p se qu en ti al ev al ua ti on pr oc es s re qu ire d b y 20 C.F.R. §§ 40 4.1 52 0( a)(4 ), 41 6.9 20 (a)( 4)

. See Jo hn so n v. Co lv in , 78 8 F.3 d 87 0, 87 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (q uo ti ng Hil l v. Co lv in , 75 3 F.3 d 79 8, 80 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 )). The ALJ

co rrec tl y fo un d fro m th e reco rd th at Mi dg y et t ha d “ no t en ga ge d in su bs ta nt ia l ga in fu l
act iv it y si nc e Aug us t 8, 20 09 .” The ALJ de te rm in ed th at Mi dg y et t es ta bl is he d se ve re im pa irments , in cl ud in g “ le arn in g di sa bl ed wit h po ss ib le lo w in te ll ect ua l fu nc ti on in g

an d id io pa th ic th or aci c sc ol io si s wit h hi st or y of fu si on su rg ery. ” Howev er, th e ALJ

co nc lu de d th at Mi dg y et t do es no t ha ve an im pa irment or co m

bi na ti on of im

pa irments th at m eet s or m ed ic al ly eq ua ls th e se ve rit y of on e of th e li st e d i mp a i r men t s in 20 C.F.R. Part 40 4, Su bp art P. ap p. 1, in cl ud in g Lis ti ng 12 .05

. Fi na ll y , “ [a]fter care fu l

co ns id erat io n of t h e en ti re reco rd ,” th e ALJ de te rm in ed th at Mi dg y et t “ ha s th e

res id ua l fu nc ti on al cap aci ty to p erfo rm m ed iu m wor k as defi ne d” by la w. The ALJ
qu al ifi ed th is de te rm in at io n a s fo ll ows :

The Hon or ab le Dav id P. Ru sh , Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dge fo r th e W es te rn 1 Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri, si tt in g by co ns en t of th e pa rti es pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 63 6( c)

an d F ed . R. Civ . P. 73 (a).

-2

-The cl ai m an t is ab le to un de rs ta nd , rem em be r, an d carr y ou t si m

pl e in st ru ct io ns co ns is te nt wit h un sk il le d wor k. The cl ai m an t sh ou ld wor k in a job whe re th ere a r e n o st ric t pr od uc ti on qu ot as an d th e cl ai m an t

wou ld no t be su bjec t to th e de m an ds of fas t-p aced pr od uc ti on wor k, i.e.

wor k by t he sh ift a n d n o t b y th e ho ur

. The cl ai m an t can pe rfo rm on ly si m pl e de ci si on -m ak in g rela te d to ba si c wor k fu nc ti on s. Th e cl ai m an t

can to le rat e o nl y

m in or , in freq ue nt ch an ge s wi th in th e wor kp la ce.

W e rev ie w de no vo th e di st r i c t c o u rt’s jud gm en t de nyin g so ci al se cu rit y be ne fit s. Van ce v. Berr y hi ll , 86 0 F.3 d 11 14 , 11 17 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ). W e “ do no t rewei gh th e ev id en ce pr es en te d to th e ALJ,” an d “ we d e f e r t o th e ALJ’s de te rm in at io ns reg ard in g cred ib il it y of te st im on y , as lo ng as th os e de te rm in at io ns are

su pp or te d b y

go od reas on s and su bs ta nt ia l evi de nc e.” Jo hn so n v. Co lv in , 78 8 F .3d 87 0, 87 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (q uo ti ng Gon zal es v. Barn ha rt, 46 5 F.3 d 89 0, 89 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 )) (in te rn al qu ot at io n mar k s o mitt ed ). “ Su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce is le ss th an a pr ep on de ran ce, bu t en ou gh th at a reas on ab le m in d wou ld fin d it ad eq ua te to su pp or t th e ALJ’s de ci si on .” Vanc e, 86 0 F .3d at 1 11 7 (q uo ti ng Gon zal es , 46 5 F .3d at 89 4) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

The ALJ’s de ci si on is su pp or te d by th e reco rd , in cl ud in g Mi dg ye t t ’s own te st im on y

. Mi dg y et t ad m it te d to act iv it ie s of da il y li vi ng “ in cl ud in g at te nd in g to he r pe rs on al care , pe rf

orm in g ho us eh ol d ch or es su ch as was hi ng di sh es , pr ep ari ng si m pl e

m eal s, dr iv in g he r da ug ht er to sc ho ol , sh op pi n g i n s t o r es , so ci al iz in g wit h fri en ds , watc hi ng te le vi si on , an d he lp in g he r d a u g h t e r wit h ho m ewo rk .” The ALJ’s

co nc lu si on th at “ [s ]om e of th e ph y si cal an d m en ta l a b i l i t i e s an d so ci al in te ract io ns

r e q u i r e d in or de r to pe rfo rm th es e act iv it ie s are th e sa m e as th os e ne ces sa ry fo r ob ta in in g an d m ai nt ai ni ng em pl oym en t” is su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l e v i d e n ce. W e wil l no t reweig h th e ALJ’s fin di ng th at “ th e cl ai m an t’s abi li ty to pa rti ci pa te in su ch
act iv it ie s di m in is he s th e cred ib il it y of th e cl ai m an t’s al le ga ti on s of fu nc ti on al li m it at io ns gr eat er th an fo u n d in th e de te rm in ed res id ua l fu nc ti on al cap aci ty.” Su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce fu rth er su pp or ts th e ALJ’s de ci si on th at “ th e job s ci te d by t he

-3

-vo cat io na l ex pe rt c an be us ed to su pp or t a fin di ng of wor k th at ex is ts in si gn ifi can t

nu m be rs in th e n at io na l ec on om y .”

I n s ho rt, th e “ ALJ was en ti tl ed to fin d, ba se d on ” th e m ed ic al an d sc ho o l

reco rd s, Mi dg y et t’s te st im on y , an d th e te st i mon y of th e vo cat io na l ex pe rt th at Mi dg y et t “ do es no t ex hi bi t th e de fic it s in ad ap ti ve fu nc ti on in g ne ed ed to m eet Lis ti ng 12 .05 .” See J oh ns on , 78 8 F .3d at 8 73

.

W e affi rm th e jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t affi r mi n g t h e Co m m is si on er’s de ni al of b en efi ts

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-