Opinion ID: 808649
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Marked hyperactivity;

Text: And B. . . . for children (age 3 to attainment of age 18), resulting in at least two of the appropriate age-group criteria in paragraph B2 of 112.02. 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, App. 1, Listing 112.11. The ALJ found that Z.C. did not meet Listing 112.11. T.C. argues that the ALJ‟s analysis amounted to a “conclusory statement . . . beyond meaningful judicial review.” Burnett v. Comm‟r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 220 F.3d 112, 119-20 (3d Cir. 2000) (“Because we have no way to review the ALJ‟s hopelessly inadequate . . . ruling, we will vacate and remand the case for a discussion of the evidence and an explanation of reasoning supporting a determination that Burnett‟s „severe‟ impairment does not meet or is not equivalent to a listed impairment.”); see T.C. Reply Br. 1. However, this Court has noted that “Burnett does not require the ALJ to use particular language or adhere to a particular format in conducting his analysis. Rather the function of Burnett is to ensure that there is sufficient development of the record and explanation of findings to permit meaningful review.” Jones v. Barnhart, 364 F.3d 501, 505 (3d Cir. 2004). In this case, the ALJ provided a synopsis of his findings, which the 6 District Court held was sufficient for meaningful judicial review. We agree. Read as a whole, the ALJ‟s synopsis provides adequate explanation of the factors the ALJ used to determine whether Z.C.‟s ADHD did not meet Listing 112.11 and the ALJ‟s conclusion was supported by substantial evidence. T.C. also argues the ALJ‟s finding that Z.C. did not functionally equal the listing because he had less than marked limitation or no limitation in the domains of completing tasks, and interacting and relating with others, was not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. As the District Court noted, the record is “rife with examples of Z.C.‟s ability to successfully interact with his peers and adults.” App. 23. Further, the ALJ recognized that while Z.C. had “some difficulty focusing and completing tasks . . . . [h]e is able to complete his work with proper focus.” Tr. 33. In support of this conclusion, the ALJ cited Exhibit 10F, which contained school records for Z.C., which the ALJ discussed in detail earlier in his opinion. The ALJ also noted that the doctor from disability determination services (“DDS”) assessed Z.C.‟s functional domains and the ALJ held that the medical and non-medical record was consistent with that assessment. Tr. 31. Read as a whole, the ALJ‟s conclusion that Z.C.‟s impairments did not functionally equal the listed impairment is supported by substantial evidence.