Naomi McMillian v. Commissioner of Social Security

Case: 12-15671 Date Filed: 06/06/2013 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-15671
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:11-cv-00344-WKW-SRW
NAOMI MCMILLIAN,
o.b.o. A.T.F.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(June 6, 2013)
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 12-15671 Date Filed: 06/06/2013 Page: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Naomi McMillian, on behalf of her minor child, A.T.F., appeals the district
court’s order affirming the denial by the Social Security Commissioner
(“Commissioner”) of supplemental security income (“SSI”) benefits. McMillian
argues that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in determining that
A.T.F.’s impairments did not medically equal a listed impairment. Briefly stated,
she asserts that the ALJ failed to consider the combination of A.T.F.’s
impairments, gave insufficient weight to his medical history before March 2007,
and failed to consider A.T.F.’s use of corticosteroids to treat his asthma.
We review the Commissioner’s final decision “to determine if it is supported
by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards.” Lewis v. Callahan,
125 F.3d 1436, 1439 (11th Cir. 1997). “Substantial evidence is more than a
scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. at 1440. “Even if the evidence
preponderates against the [Commissioner]’s factual findings, we must affirm if the
decision reached is supported by substantial evidence.” Martin v. Sullivan, 894
F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990).
An individual under the age of 18 is considered to be disabled if he or she
“has a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, which results in
2
Case: 12-15671 Date Filed: 06/06/2013 Page: 3 of 5
marked and severe functional limitations, and which can be expected to result in
death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not
less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(C)(i). “Federal regulations set
forth the process by which the SSA determines if a child is disabled and thereby
eligible for disability benefits.” Shinn ex rel. Shinn v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 391
F.3d 1276, 1278 (11th Cir. 2004). At the first step of this process, the ALJ must
determine whether the child is doing “substantial gainful activity.” Id. If not, the
ALJ must determine whether the child has a medically determinable impairment or
combination of impairments that is severe. Id. If the child has a severe
impairment, the ALJ then determines whether the impairment “causes marked and
severe functional limitations for the child.” Id. (quotation omitted). “A child’s
impairment is recognized as causing marked and severe functional limitations if
those limitations meet, medically equal, or functionally equal” a listed impairment
at 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. Id. at 1279 (quotation and
alterations omitted).
“To ‘meet’ a Listing, a claimant must have a diagnosis included in the
Listings and must provide medical reports documenting that the conditions meet
the specific criteria of the Listings and the duration requirement.” Wilson v.
Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1224 (11th Cir. 2002). To “equal” a Listing, the medical
findings must be “at least equal in severity and duration” to the listed findings. See
3
Case: 12-15671 Date Filed: 06/06/2013 Page: 4 of 5
20 C.F.R. § 404.1526(a). Where a claimant has alleged several impairments, the
ALJ is required to consider the impairments in combination and to determine
whether the combined impairments are medically equivalent to a listed
impairment. See Jones v. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 941 F.2d 1529,
1533 (11th Cir. 1991).
To meet Listing 103.03(C)(2), for asthma, the claimant must suffer from
“[p]ersistent low-grade wheezing between acute attacks or absence of extended
symptom-free periods requiring daytime and nocturnal use of sympathomimetic
bronchodilators with . . . [s]hort courses of corticosteroids that average more than 5
days per month for at least 3 months during a 12-month period.” 20 C.F.R. Pt.
404, Subpt. P, App. 1 § 103.03(C)(2).
Substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s determination that A.T.F.’s
impairments did not medically equal a Listing. The ALJ sufficiently explained his
decision, stating that he considered A.T.F.’s impairments singularly and in
combination, and compared them to the Listing requirements. The record does not
show that the ALJ failed to consider A.T.F.’s impairments (including his recurrent
ear problems) in combination, that A.T.F.’s medical history prior to March 2007
was entitled to greater weight than it received, or that -- especially given the
exhibits reflecting administration of corticosteroids and the ALJ’s discussion of
A.T.F.’s history of treatment for upper respiratory problems -- the ALJ failed to
4
Case: 12-15671 Date Filed: 06/06/2013 Page: 5 of 5
consider A.T.F.’s use of corticosteroids. For background, see Wilson v. Barnhart,
284 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2002); Hutchison v. Bowen, 787 F.2d 1461 (11th Cir.
1986).
AFFIRMED.
5