## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __
No. 1 1- 35 44

__ __ __ __ __

Kev in By es , *

* App el la nt , *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* East ern Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s. Mi ch ael J. As tru e, Co m

m is si on er, * So ci al Secu rit y

Adm in is tra ti on , *

* App el le e. *

__ __ __ __ __ _
Su bm it te d: Ju ne 15 , 20 12 Fi le d: Aug us t 2 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _
Befo re LOKEN, GRUEND ER, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _
BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Kev in E. By es ap pl ie d fo r d i s a b i li ty in su ran ce be ne fit s an d su pp le m en ta l

se cu rit y in co m e on Ju ly 30
, 20 07
, cl ai m in g di sa bi li ty si nc e Nov em be r 20 0 5. An
Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e (ALJ) up he ld th e Co m m is si on er’s de ni al of be ne fit s. The
di st ric t co ur t ag reed

. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 91
, th is co ur t affi rm s.

1

The Hon or ab le Bet h M. Deere
, Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s, to who m th e cas e was refe rred by co ns en t of th e pa rti es pu rs ua nt
to 28 U.S.C. § 6 36 (c).By es , bo rn Aug us t 9 , 19 65 , was 4 0 y ears ol d at th e ti m e of hi s al le ge d o ns et ,

an d 4 4 years o ld at t he ti m e o f th e ALJ’s de ci si on

. He ha s a te nt h g rad e ed uc at io n, in cl ud in g sp eci al ed uc at io n cl as se s. He te st ifi ed he can read an d writ e gr oc ery li st s, read pa rts of th e ne wsp ap er, an d ha d pa st wor k ex pe rie nc e as a farm er, la bo rer, tru ck
dr iv er, an d ro ad m ai nt en an ce work er. By es al so st at ed th at th es e job s re qu ire d h im

to writ e rep or ts an d u se tec hn ic al sk il ls an d k no wled ge

.

Beg in ni ng wit h a do ct or ’s vi si t in Sep te m be r 20 06
, By es so ug ht tre at m en t fro m

m ed ic al pr of

es si on al s si x ti m es

. Doc to rs di ag no se d and tre at ed hi m fo r a va rie ty of

co nd it io ns in cl ud in g: cel lu li ti s, a to ot h ab sc es s, he rn i as , ba ck an d ne ck pa in

, he ad ach es , m

y al gi a, an d a rth rit is

.

An ALJ rev ie wed By es ’s cl ai m acco rd in g to th e fiv e-s te p an al y si s in th e So ci al
Secu rit y reg ul at io ns

. Se e 20 C.F.R. §§ 40 4

. 1 5 20 (a )-(f)
, 41 6.9 20 (a )-(f)

. On 2

Decem be r 16
, 20 09
, th e ALJ de ci de d: (1 ) By es 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 Nov em

be r 1, 20 05
, th e al le ge d on se t da te ; (2 ) By es su ffer s fro m se ve ral

se ve re im pa irments

, inc lud ing : ar

thr iti s, ir ri ta ble bow el sy

nd ro m e, he rn ia

, an d ch ro ni c ob st ru ct iv e pu lm on ary di se as e; (3 ) By es do es no t ha ve an im pa irment or co m

bi na ti on of im pa irments so se ve re to au to m at ic al ly rece iv e be ne fit s; (4 ) By es ha s th e res id ua l
fu nc ti on al cap aci ty to pe rfo rm li gh t wor k, an d can no t pe rfo rm an y of hi s pa st rel ev an t

wor k as a l a b o r e r , farm er, ro ad m ai nt en an ce wor ke r, an d tru ck dr iv er th at req ui re

m ed iu m ex ert io na l l e v e l s ; (5 ) co ns id eri ng By es ’s a ge , e du cat io n, wor k ex pe rie nc e,

an d res id ua l fu nc ti on al cap aci ty, Med ic al -Vo cat io na l Ru le 20 2.1 8 d ire ct s a fin di ng of “ no t di sa bl ed .” The ALJ co nc lu de d th at By es was no t di sa bl ed fro m N o ve m be r 1, 2 00 5 t hr ou gh th e d at e o f th e d eci si on

.

“ The fiv e-p art te st is whe th er t he cla im an t i s (1 ) cu rren tl y em pl oyed an d (2 ) 2

se ve rel y im

pa ire d; (3 ) whe th er th e im pa irment is or ap pr ox im at es a lis te d im pa irment; (4 ) whe th er th e cl ai m an t can pe rfo rm pa st rel ev an t wor k; an d if no t, (5 ) whe th er th e cl ai m an t can pe rfo rm an y ot he r ki nd of wor k.” Ki ng v. As tr ue , 56 4 F.3 d 97 8, 97 9 n.2 (8 th Cir . 20 09 ). -2

-The di st ric t co ur t ag reed wit h th e ALJ’s de ci si on , ex cep t for on e po in t. By es

ap p e a l s , a r gu in g th at th e ALJ’s fin di ng th at he ha d no m en ta l im pa irments is no t

su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce on th e reco rd as a who le

. By es al so ob jects to th e di st ric t co ur t’s h arm le ss -err or rul in g.

Thi s co ur t rev ie ws de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on affi rm in g th e de ni al of
be ne fit s. Tra vi

s v. As tr ue , 47 7 F.3 d 10 37
, 10 40 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). Thi s co ur t rev ers es th e fin di ng s of th e Co m m is si on er on ly if th ey are no t s u p p o r te d by su bs ta nt ia l

ev id en ce or res ul t fro m an erro r of la w. Se e 42 U.S.C. § 40 5( g) (“ The fin di ng s of th e Co m m is si on er of So ci al Secu rit y as to an y fact

, if su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce, sh al l be co nc lu si ve .”); Jo hns on v. As tr ue , 62 7 F.3 d 31 6, 31 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). In th is

su bs ta nt ia l-e vi de nc e de te rm in at io n, th e en ti re ad m in is tra ti ve reco rd is co ns id ered bu t
th e ev id en ce is no t rewei gh ed

. Shel to n v. Cha te r , 87 F.3 d 99 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ). Se e al so Lop ex ex re l. Lop ez v. Ba rn ha rt , 33 6 F.3 d 53 5, 53 9 (7 th Ci r. 20 03 ). 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 Co m m is si on er’s co nc lu si on

. Tra vi s , 47 7 F.3 d at 10 40

. In
de te rm in in g whe th er ev i d e n c e is su bs ta nt ia l, th is co ur t co ns id ers “ ev id en ce th at
de tra ct s fro m th e Co m

m is si on er’s de ci si on as well as ev id en ce th at su pp or ts it .” Id

. , ci ti ng Si ng

h v. Ap fel
, 22 2 F.3 d 44 8, 45 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ). “ If su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce

su pp or ts th e Co m

m is si on er’s co nc lu si on s, th is co ur t do es no t rev ers e ev en if it wou ld

reac h a di ffer en t co nc lu si on , or m erel y be cau se su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce al so su pp or ts th e

co nt rary out co m e.” Id

.

I.

By es arg ue s th at th e reco rd a s a w h ol e pr es en ts an un res ol ve d am bi gu it y whe th er he su ffer s fro m a se ve re m en ta l im pa irment. The ALJ ha s a du ty to fu ll y an d
fai rly de ve lo p th e ev id en ti ary reco rd

. Se e Snea d v. Ba rn ha rt , 36 0 F.3 d 83 4, 83 8 (8 th
Ci r. 20 04 ) (“ W el l-s et t l ed pr eced en t co nf irms th at th e ALJ be ars a res po ns ib il it y to
de ve lo p th e reco rd fai rly an d fu ll y , in de pe nd en t of th e cl ai m an t’s bu rd en to pr es s hi s

cas e.”). Fai li ng to de ve lo p th e reco r d i s r e v e r si bl e erro r whe n it do es no t co nt ai n -3

-en ou gh ev id en ce to de te rm in e th e im pa ct of a cl ai m an t’s im

pa irment on hi s ab il it y to

wor k. Co x v. Ap fel
, 16 0 F.3 d 12 03
, 12 09 -1 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ). Se e La u e r v. Ap fel
, 25 4 F.3 d 70 0, 70 3- 04 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (h ol di ng th at an ALJ m us t ob ta in an d co ns id er

m ed ic al ev id en ce to su pp or t a de te rm in at io n of a c l a im an t’s res id ua l fu nc ti on al

cap aci ty). If su ffi ci en t ev id en ce al ert s t he ALJ to th e p os si bi li ty of a s ev ere m en ta l
im pa irment, th e ALJ m

us t fu rth er de ve lo p th e reco rd ab ou t m en ta l im pa irments
be fo re ru li ng on th e se ve rit y of th e cl ai m an t’s im pa irment( s)

. Se e Gas aw ay v. Ap fel
, 1 8 7 F

. 3d 84 0, 84 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ); Fr eem an v. Ap fel
, 20 8 F.3 d 68 7, 69 2 (8 t h C i r

. 20 00 ) (“ [I]t is rev ers ib le erro r fo r an ALJ no t to or de r a co ns ul ta ti ve e x a mi na ti on whe n su ch an ev al ua ti on is ne ces sa ry fo r hi m to m ak e an in fo rm ed de ci si on .” (ci ta ti on

an d i nt ern al qu ot es om it te d) ).

The pr in ci pa l is su e he re is w h et he r su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce su pp or ts th e ALJ’s
fin di ng of n o s ev ere m en ta l i m pa irment ( i.e., b or de rli ne in te ll ect ua l fu nc ti on in g)

.

By es fo cu se s on th e rep or t of Dr. Hop e M. Gil ch ris t, a li cen se d ps y ch ol og is t
who ex am in ed By es at th e req ue st of t h e Co m m is si on er. Dr. Gil ch ris t no te d hi s ed uc a ti on hi st or y , read in g an d writ in g li m it at io ns , an d Glo ba l Ass es sm en t of

Fu nc ti on in g (GAF) sc or e of 45

. Sh e ex pl ai ne d, “ I su sp ect he i s e i t h e r B or de rli ne
In te ll ect ua l Fu nc ti on in g or he ha s le arn in g di sa bi li ti es

. . . . I am gi vi ng hi m a ru le ou t 3

on Learn in g Dis ab il it ie s an d Bo rd erl in e In te ll ect ua l Fu nc ti on in g.” Bo rd erl in e
In te ll ect ua l Fu nc ti on in g de sc rib es in di vi du al s wit h IQs be twee n 71 an d 84

. Thom as

v. Sul li va n , 87 6 F.2 d 66 6
, 6 68 n.1 (8 th Ci r. 19 89 ). Bo rd erl in e In te ll ect ua l

Fu nc ti on in g is reco gn iz ed as a “ si gn ifi can t no ne xe rti on al im pa irment.” Se e Lucy v. Cha te r , 11 3 F.3 d 90 5, 90 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ); Co ke rh am v. Sul li va n , 89 5 F.2 d 49 2, 49 6 (8 th Cir . 19 90 ).

“ Ru le ou t ” i n a m ed ic al reco rd m ean s th at th e di so rd er is su sp ect ed

, bu t no t 3

co nf irmed – i.e., th ere is ev id en c e t h a t th e cri te ria fo r a di ag no si s m ay be m et , bu t

m or e in fo rm at io n i s ne ed ed in or de r to ru le it ou t. Se e Unit ed Sta te s v. Gr ap e , 54 9 F.3 d 5 91 , 59 3 n .2 (3 d C ir. 2 00 8)

. -4

-Su

bst an tial ev id en ce su pp or ts th e ALJ’s de ci si on

. Dr. Gil ch ris t no te d tha t By es ha s th e cap aci ty to co pe wit h m en ta l co gn it iv e wor k de m an ds as lo ng as th ey were no t

to be read or writ te n. By es rep or te d th at he is ab le to pa y bi ll s, co un t ch an ge , ha nd le
hi s own fin an ces , an d ha d writ te n rep or ts an d us ed te ch ni cal sk il ls an d kn owl ed ge in
hi s pa st job s. He te st ifi ed th at he m ai nt ai ns a si zab le ga r d e n a n d w o rk ed as a
carp en te r an d m ech an ic

. Hol di ng job s li ke th es e fo r se ve ral y ears , ev en wit h po ss ib le

co gn it iv e di sa bi li ti es , su pp or ts th e ALJ’s fin di ng of no n- di sa bl ed

. Se e Ro be rt s v. Ap fel
, 22 2 F.3 d 46 6, 46 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ); Cl ar k v. Ap fel
, 14 1 F.3 d 12 53
, 1 2 5 5 -5 6 (8 th Cir . 19 98 ). Se e a ls o Mi le s v. B ar nha rt , 37 4 F .3d 69 4, 6 99 (8t h C ir. 2 00 4)

.

By es rel ie s on th ree pr io r cas es : Th omp so n v. Su ll iv an , 87 8 F.2 d 11 08 (8 th Ci r. 19 89 ) , Do zi er

v. Heckl er , 75 4 F .2d 27 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 85 ), an d Gas aw ay v. Apf el , 1 87
F.3 d 84 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ). He arg ue s th at a si ng le rep or t th at a cl ai m an t m ig ht ha ve

a se ve re m en ta l i m

pa irment m ay

in di cat e th e ab se nc e o f su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce.

Th omp so n is in ap pl ic ab le

. Tha t cas e ad dr es se d whet he r su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce

su pp or te d a fin di ng th at th e cl ai m an t was en ga ge d in su bs ta nt ia l ga in fu l act i v i ty,
whi ch pr ecl ud es a fin di ng of di sa bi li ty reg ard le ss of an y im pa irments

. Thom

ps on , 87 8 F.2 d at 11 10

. W hi le th is co ur t di d or de r th e ex pl or at io n of an y m en ta l ret ard at io n is su es ba se d on a si ng le rep or t, th at an al y si s was on ly t o t a k e p l a ce “ if th e an al y si s

on rem an d reach es th e st at e o f de te rm in in g t he de gr ee of im pa irment.” Id

. at 11 11

.

Do z i e r b e t t er pa ral le ls By es ’s fact s, in th at ve ry li tt le ev id en ce of a sp eci fic

co nd it io n was av ai la bl e. Doz ie r , 75 4 F.2 d at 27 5- 76

. The re, th is co ur t rev ers ed an d

rem an de d be cau se th e la ck of su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r an y fin di ng , an d th e ALJ’s
fai lu re to o r d e r a co ns ul ta ti ve ex am in at io n, pr ev en te d th e ALJ fro m m ak in g an i n f o r m ed de ci si on

. Id

. at 27 6. True
, li tt le ev id en ce he re in di cat es th at By es ha s Bo rd erl in e In te ll ect ua l Fu nc ti on in g. Ho wev er, s ub st an ti al ev id en ce t o t he co nt rary al lo wed th e ALJ t o m ak e an in fo rm ed de ci si on

.

-5

-Gas aw ay was r e v e rs ed an d rem an de d be cau se , whi le co ns id erab le ev id en ce

su pp or te d a fin di ng o f n o t di sa bl ed

, m ul ti pl e so ur ces st at ed th e co nt rary. The
cl ai m an t in Gas aw ay ha d at te nd ed s p e c i a l e d uc at io n cl as se s in sc ho ol be cau se of
sl ow le arn in g, ha d a ve rb al IQ of 69
, an d ha d “ m en ta l ret ard at i o n ” r e c or de d in he r

m ed ic al hi st or y

. Thi s co ur t fo un d th at th e ALJ ha d no t su ffi ci en tl y d ev el op ed th e

reco rd

. Gas aw ay , 18 7 F.3 d at 84 3. The am pl e un e q u i v o cal ev id en ce in Gas aw ay

co nt ras ts wit h th e si ng le “ ru le -o ut ” m en ti on ed in By es ’s cas e, whi ch do es no t in di cat e

a se ve re m en ta l i m

pa irment a nd is co nt rad ic te d b y su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce.

II.

The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at th e ALJ ha d ap pl ie d th e in co rrec t gr id ru le

, us in g

ru le 20 2.1 8 in or de r to de te rm in e th at By es is no t di sa bl ed

. Se e 20 C.F.R. Pt. 40 4, Subp t. P, App. 2, Ta bl e 2, Rule 20 2.1 8. The di st ric t co ur t ag reed wit h By es th at

s u b s t a n ti al ev id en ce di d no t su pp or t a fin di ng th at he co ul d pe rfo rm li gh t w o r k

. Nev ert he le ss , it fo un d th a t t h e ALJ’s ap pl ic at io n of 20 2.1 8 was ha rm le ss erro r be cau se , ev en if By es is il li te rat e an d li m it ed to se de nt ary wor k, he w o ul d st il l be
fo un d “ no t d is ab le d” un de r ru le 20 1.2 3.

By es be li ev es th at th e ALJ’s erro r was no t ha rm le ss

. He arg ue s th at if th e ALJ
ha d co rrec tl y fo un d th at he co ul d no t pe r f o rm li gh t wor k an d ha d reco gn iz ed hi s bo rd erl in e-ag e si tu at io n, Byes was eli gi bl e fo r be ne fit s u nd er g rid rul e 2 01 .17

.

To sh ow an erro r was no t ha rm le ss , By es m us t pr ov id e so m e in di cat io n th at th e ALJ wou ld ha ve de ci de d di ffer en tl y if th e erro r ha d no t oc cu rred Se e V an V ic kl e v. As tr ue , 53 9 F.3 d 82 5, 83 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (“ The re is no in di cat io n th at th e ALJ wou ld
h av e de ci de d di ffer en tl y

. . . an d an y erro r by th e ALJ was th eref or e ha r ml e s s

. ” ) ; Hen sl ey v. Ba rn ha rt , 3 52 F.3 d 35 3, 35 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (h ol di ng th at ap p l yi n g t h e in co rrec t gr id ru le is ha rm le ss erro r whe n a cl ai m an t is no t di sa bl ed un de r th e pr op er

ru le ). Eve n if th e ALJ ha d no t erre d, th ere is no in di cat io n th at th e ALJ wou ld ha ve de ci de d d iff

eren tl y

. -6

-The Co m m is si on er

wil l no t ap pl y th e ag e cat eg or ie s m ech an ic al ly in a bo rd erl in e si tu at io n. If [a cl ai m an t is ] wit hi n a few da y s to a few m on th s of reac hi ng an ol de r ag e cat eg or y , an d us in g th e ol de r ag e cat eg or y wou ld res ul t in a de te rm in at io n or de ci si on th at [th e cl ai m an t is ] di sa bl ed

, [th e Adm in is tra ti on ] wil l co ns id er whe th er to us e th e ol de r ag e cat eg or y aft er

ev al ua ti ng th e ov eral l im

pa ct of al l th e fact or s of [th e cl ai m an t’s] cas e.

20 C.F.R. § 4 04 .15 63 (b)

.

The ALJ’s erro r was ha rm le ss f o r t h r e e reas on s. Fi rs t, se ct io n 40 4.1 56 3( b)
do es no t r e q u i r e th at an ALJ ap pl y an ol de r ag e cat eg or y in bo rd erl in e si tu at io ns

. Acco rd in g to th e reg ul at io n, th e ALJ is req ui red on ly to “ co ns id er whe th er to us e th e ol de r ag e cat eg or y .” Id

. (em ph as is a d d e d )

. Se e Loc kw oo d v. Co m m is si on er , 61 6
F.3 d 10 68 , 1 07 2- 73 (9 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (“ It i s cl ear f ro m th e te xt of th is reg ul at io n th at

an ALJ is no t req ui red to us e an ol de r ag e cat eg or y , eve n i f th e cl ai m an t i s wi th in a few da y s or a few m on th s of reac hi ng an ol de r ag e cat eg or y .”); Bo wi e v. Co m m is si on er , 53 9 F.3 d 39 5, 39 9- 40 1 (6 th Ci r.20 08 ) ( h ol di ng th at se ct io n 40 4.1 56 3( b) “ do es no t im po se on ALJs a pe r se pr oc ed ur al req u i r em en t to ad dr es s bo rd erl in e ag e cat eg or iz at io n i n e ve ry bo rd erl in e cas e”).

Seco nd

, By es ’s ag e was no t b o r de rli ne

. W he n th e ALJ is su ed th e de ci si on , By es was al m os t ei gh t m on th s away fro m hi s 45 th bi rth da y

. Bec au se th e bo rd erl in e

ru le ta ke s in to acco un t se ve ral fact or s be si de s ag e, th ere is n o b r i g h t l i ne fo r ho w

m an y m on th s co ns ti tu te a bo rd erl in e cas e. Phil li ps v. As tr ue , 67 1 F.3 d 69 9, 70 3- 04 (8 th Cir . 20 12 ). Howev er, ei gh t m on th s i s t oo di st an t t o b e b or de rli ne

. Se e Bo wi e , 53 9 F.3 d at 39 7 (cl ai man t l e s s th an two m on th s fro m bi rth da y is no t bo rd erl in e);

Loc kw oo d
, 61 6 F.3 d at 10 72 -7 4 ( cl ai m an t on ly on e m on th an d th ree da y s fro m bi rth da y is no t bo rd erl in e); V an Der Ma as v. Co m m is si on er of So ci al Sec.
, 19 8 Fed

. App x. 52 1, 52 8 (6 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (ta ki ng in to acco un t al l fact or s su rro un di ng cl ai m an t’s

ap pl ic at io n, 55 da y s is no t bo rd erl in e); Ro be rt s v. Ba rn ha rt , 13 9 Fed

. App x. 41 8, 42 0

-7

-(3 d Ci r. 20 05 ) (p ers on s wit hi n fiv e to si x m on th s of th ei r bi rth da y are no t bo rd erl in e);

Lam be rt v. Cha te r , 96 F.3 d 46 9, 47 0 (1 0t h Ci r. 19 96 )(s ev en m on th s sh or t of bi rth da y is no t bo rd erl in e). The m os t fav or a b l e d eci si on – ho ld in g th at fo ur m on th s was bo rd erl in e – co m es fro m th is co ur t, an d do es no t ai d By es

. Phil li ps , 67 1 F.3 d at 70 3-
04

.

Thi rd

, ev en if th e ALJ ha d gi ve n By es t h e b e n efi t of th e hi gh er 45 -4 9 ag e
gr ou p, he woul d st il l hav e be en no t d is ab le d. In ad di ti on to te st ifyin g th at he co ul d

pe rfo rm so m e read in g and writ in g, By es te st ifi ed th at hi s pas t work req ui red hi m to

w r i te rep or ts an d ha ve te ch ni cal sk il ls an d kn owl ed ge

. The se ab il it ie s req u i r e t h e ALJ to ap pl y gr id ru le 20 1.1 9, in di cat in g a fin di ng of “ no t di sa bl ed .” Eve n if th e ALJ
ha d no t erre d in fin di ng th at By es c o u l d d o l i gh t wor k, By es wou ld no t ha ve be en gi ve n t he be ne fit of a hi gh er ag e cat eg or y

.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

-8

-