Parks Ex Rel. D.P. v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6469
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- Rachel Parks applied for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for her son D.P. (minor) alleging ADHD, learning disability, and verbal intellectual deficits; applications denied at initial and reconsideration stages.
- Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found D.P. had ADHD and borderline intellectual functioning but did not functionally equal a listed impairment; ALJ rated D.P. as "marked" in attending/completing tasks but "less than marked" in acquiring and using information.
- Medical and educational records showed IQ between 64–73, special education services (IEP), teacher reports of extensive adult support, testing accommodations, and mixed academic progress across grades 5–7.
- Parks submitted additional teacher questionnaires to the Appeals Council documenting continued low grade-level performance; the Appeals Council added the evidence to the record but denied review.
- The district court affirmed the ALJ; the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and whether the Appeals Council must make explicit findings about new evidence when denying review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ's finding that D.P. has a less-than-marked limitation in "acquiring and using information" is supported by substantial evidence | Parks: ALJ ignored D.P.’s dependence on supports and failed to assess independence; evidence shows inability to function independently | Commissioner: ALJ considered dependence, teacher reports, consultants, progress, and daily activities; evidence supports less-than-marked finding | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports ALJ’s less-than-marked finding |
| Whether Appeals Council must make explicit factual findings about new evidence it adds when denying review | Parks: Appeals Council erred by not making specific findings about the new teacher questionnaires | Commissioner: Appeals Council need only consider and add new, material, chronologically relevant evidence and state it considered it | Affirmed: Appeals Council not required to provide detailed findings when denying review |
Key Cases Cited
- Cornelius v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1143 (11th Cir. 1991) (standard of appellate review for Commissioner’s factual findings)
- Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233 (11th Cir. 1983) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520 (11th Cir. 1990) (affirmance standard even if evidence preponderates against Commissioner)
- Ingram v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 496 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of legal conclusions)
- Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2002) (review of district court judgment)
- Mitchell v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration, 771 F.3d 780 (11th Cir. 2014) (Appeals Council not required to provide detailed discussion of new evidence when denying review)
- Epps v. Harris, 624 F.2d 1267 (5th Cir. 1980) (discussed in context of Appeals Council’s evaluation of new evidence in a different procedural posture)
- Bowen v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 629 (11th Cir. 1984) (Appeals Council must apply correct legal standards and consider combined effect of impairments)