Adams Ex Rel. D.J.W. v. Astrue
659 F.3d 1297
10th Cir.2011Background
- Ms. Adams, acting pro se for her minor son D.J.W., seeks review of the SSA denial of SSI benefits.
- An ALJ denied benefits at step three of the sequential disability evaluation for a child with asthma and related impairments.
- Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.
- District court affirmed the SSA denial after adopting a magistrate’s recommendation and Ms. Adams’s objections were rejected.
- Court must determine if a non-attorney parent may proceed pro se on behalf of a minor child in federal court SSI appeals and then review the SSA decision on the merits.
- The panel concludes Adams may proceed pro se on behalf of D.J.W. and proceeds to address the SSA denial on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of a non-attorney parent to sue for a minor in SSI appeal | Adams may represent D.J.W. pro se | Not contested; standard standing applies | Adams may proceed pro se for D.J.W. |
| Whether the asthma impairment met or equaled the listings | Asthma could be equivalent to adult listing criteria | Part B criteria applied; no listing-level severity found | ALJ correctly applied Part B criteria; no listing-level disability found for asthma. |
| Credibility of D.J.W. and mother's testimony | Testimony should support disability | Record shows relatively normal activities undermining total disability | Credibility findings supported by substantial evidence. |
| Appropriate criteria under Part B vs Part A for a child | Part A criteria should be used if appropriate | Part B criteria applicable and sufficient; Part A discretionary | ALJ properly used Part B criteria; Part A discretionary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilderness Soc'y v. Kane Cnty., Utah, 632 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir. 2011) (prudential standing limits in general; en banc discussion context)
- Meeker v. Kercher, 782 F.2d 153 (10th Cir. 1986) (non-attorney parent generally cannot litigate minor child’s federal claims)
- Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2007) (cites Meeker; representation limitations for minors)
- Harris v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2000) (non-attorney parent may proceed pro se in SSI appeals; special context)
- Machadio v. Apfel, 276 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2002) (parent may proceed where standards of competence met; regulatory context)
- Iannaccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553 (2d Cir. 1998) (pro se representation requires litigant to have personal interest)
- Krauser v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 1324 (10th Cir. 2011) (independent review of SSA decision; standard of review)
- Cowan v. Astrue, 552 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 2008) (substantial evidence standard; not reweighing evidence)