Opinion ID: 165143
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: “We review the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence and whether correct legal standards were -3- applied.” McNamar v. Apfel , 172 F.3d 764, 766 (10th Cir. 1999). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Dikeman v. Halter , 245 F.3d 1182, 1184 (10th Cir. 2001) (quotations omitted). “We have emphasized that credibility determinations are peculiarly the province of the finder of fact, and should not be upset if supported by substantial evidence.” White v. Barnhart , 287 F.3d 903, 909 (10th Cir. 2001) (quotation omitted). In determining that Mr. Crook was not credible and had not shown himself entitled to the one-half support exception, the ALJ noted that Mr. Crook had no objective evidence to support his testimony, provided no proof of his expenses, and provided no explanation why his pension and his own Social Security benefits did not cover at least one-half of his expenses. Comparing Mr. Crook’s application to his testimony, it appeared to the ALJ that Mr. Crook had contradicted himself or omitted relevant information at various times. The ALJ also indicated that it did not make sense that, even if Mr. Crook required extra funds beyond his pension and benefits, Mrs. Crook would provide such funds from her own pocket. The ALJ fulfilled his duty of setting forth concrete reasons, supported by the record, for rejecting Mr. Crook’s credibility. See id. Because the ALJ’s -4- reasons are generally supported by the record, we are compelled to accept them. Id. ; Kepler v. Chater , 68 F.3d 387, 391 (10th Cir. 1995). 1 Finally, Mr. Crook complains that he has not had the opportunity to appear before a judge. As stated above, the courts’ review of SSA determinations is limited. See McNamar , 172 F.3d at 766. Such review is generally done using the record before the SSA, and, in this court’s case, the record before the district court. Mr. Crook had the opportunity to present his arguments and evidence to the district court in writing. Under these circumstances, a hearing was not required, and there was no error in the district court’s issuing its ruling without holding one. 1 Moreover, even if the ALJ had found Mr. Crook credible, the record still provides substantial evidence to support a decision that Mr. Crook has not proved his entitlement to the one-half support exception. If Mr. Crook’s expenses exceeded $16,000 in 1990, as he testified, Mrs. Crook would have had to contribute more than the $8,000 that he testified she gave him to provide at least one-half of his support. In addition, under the one-half support test, the SSA considers “any income which is available to you for your support whether or not that income is actually used for your ordinary living costs.” 20 C.F.R § 404.366(b). To constitute one-half of Mr. Crook’s support, then, Mrs. Crook’s contributions had to equal or exceed the amounts of Mr. Crook’s pension and benefits (or at least $14,400 per year, as the record indicates that Mr. Crook’s pension alone was at least $1,200 per month), and the record does not support any inference of contributions of that level. Cf. Heberer v. Apfel , 24 F. Supp. 2d 998, 1001 (E.D. Mo. 1998) (holding that financial reports showed on their face that claimant’s pension exceeded one-half of his support, and thus wife was not providing at least one-half of his support). -5- Mr. Crook’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is GRANTED. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court Monroe G. McKay