Houston v. Chater

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Filed 1/15/97
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
RHONDA HOUSTON, for Delilah M.
Houston, a minor,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
No. 96-6223
v. (D.C. No. CV-95-1552-M)
(W.D. Okla.)
SHIRLEY S. CHATER,
Commissioner, Social Security
Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, EBEL, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff Rhonda Houston, on behalf of her daughter, Delilah M. Houston,
appeals from an order of the district court affirming the final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security denying her January 20, 1993 application for
child’s supplemental security income benefits. Delilah, born February 2, 1987,
has been treated for asthma since she was eight months old. In an opinion that
now stands as the final decision of the Commissioner, the Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) found that Delilah’s asthma was once quite severe but that, at all
times relevant to his determination, the child did not have an impairment meeting,
equaling, or functionally equaling the criteria of any listed impairment.
Moreover, the ALJ determined that Delilah’s asthma was not comparable to an
impairment that would disable an adult.
Ms. Houston appealed to the district court. The magistrate judge, to whom
the matter was referred for findings and a recommendation, concluded that
substantial evidence supported the denial of benefits. The district judge reviewed
the matter de novo and adopted the findings and recommendation of the
magistrate judge.
We have jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether it is supported by
-2-
substantial evidence and whether the correct legal standards were applied.
Washington v. Shalala, 37 F.3d 1437, 1439 (10th Cir. 1994). Substantial
evidence is relevant evidence that “a reasonable mind might accept to support a
conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (further quotations
omitted).
On appeal, Ms. Houston contends that the child’s impairment is
substantially equivalent to those specified in the listing, see 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404,
Subpt. P., App. 1, § 103.03 (1994), 1 or, alternatively, that it was of comparable
severity to an impairment that would disable an adult, 20 C.F.R. § 416.924.
1
Between the protective filing date of January 20, 1993 and the ALJ’s
decision of December 21, 1994, two slightly different versions of § 103.03 were
in effect. Ms. Houston’s argument on appeal is based solely on the version in
effect as of April 1, 1994.
In pertinent part, the relevant listing requires
Attacks (as defined in 3.00C), in spite of prescribed treatment
and requiring physician intervention, occurring at least once every 2
months or at least six times a year. Each inpatient hospitalization for
longer than 24 hours for control of asthma counts as two attacks, and
an evaluation period of at least 12 consecutive months must be used
to determine the frequency of attacks.
20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P., App. 1, § 103.03.
“Attacks” are defined as “prolonged symptomatic episodes lasting one or
more days and requiring intensive treatment, such as intravenous bronchodilator
or antibiotic administration or prolonged inhalation bronchodilator therapy in a
hospital, emergency room or equivalent setting.” Id. § 3.00C.
-3-
Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision that Delilah’s asthma
does not equal the listing of impairment for children’s bronchial asthma.
Equivalence to a listed impairment must be based on medical findings. Id.
§ 404.1526. The medical records indicate that Delilah was doing well on her
medication. Moreover, contrary to Ms. Houston’s argument, the administration of
home nebulizer treatments is not the equivalent of treatment requiring physician
intervention, see 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P., App. 1, § 103.03, or intensive
treatment, see id. § 3.00C.
Although Delilah did not have an impairment equaling a listed impairment,
she nonetheless could be found disabled if she were found to have an impairment
of comparable severity to an impairment that would disable an adult. In order to
qualify, the impairment must substantially reduce a child’s ability to
(1) Grow, develop, or mature physically, mentally, or emotionally
and, thus, to attain developmental milestones at an age appropriate
rate; or
(2) Grow, develop, or mature physically, mentally, or emotionally
and, thus, to engage in age-appropriate activities of daily living in
self-care, play and recreation, school and academics, community
activities, vocational settings, peer relationships, or family life; or
(3) Acquire the skills needed to assume roles reasonably expected of
adults.
20 C.F.R. § 416.924(a) (cross-references omitted).
-4-
The evidence showed that, while Delilah’s asthma restricted some of her
activities, it did not limit her ability to function independently, appropriately, and
effectively for her age. She attended school regularly, did satisfactory academic
work, and got along well with other children. The evidence supports the decision
that Delilah is not disabled, and we therefore affirm the denial of benefits.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
-5-