F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 18 1999
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
BRIDGETTE LONG for Marquet
Long, a minor,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
No. 98-5265
v. (D.C. No. 97-CV-763-M)
(N.D. Okla.)
KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BALDOCK , BARRETT , and McKAY , 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
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Claimant Bridgette Long appeals from the district court’s order affirming
the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her applications on
behalf of her son, Marquet Long, for supplemental security income benefits under
Title XVI of the Social Security Act. She alleged that her son became disabled on
February 9, 1994, due to a learning disability and emotional problems. Under
current agency regulations, claimant must demonstrate that her son’s alleged
impairments meet or equal a listed impairment before the child will be considered
disabled under the Act. See Brown v. Callahan , 120 F.3d 1133, 1135 (10th Cir.
1997) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(d)(2)).
Claimant’s application for income benefits was denied initially and upon
reconsideration at the administrative level. After a hearing, an administrative law
judge (ALJ) also denied her application, determining that her son does not have
“an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or equals . . . any
impairments(s) listed” in the appropriate regulations. See Appellant’s Appendix,
Vol. II, at 18. Claimant filed suit in district court; the court affirmed the agency’s
denial of benefits. This appeal followed.
Our jurisdiction over this appeal arises under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and
28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the agency’s decision is limited to determining
whether the decision is free of legal error and supported by substantial evidence.
See Brown , 120 F.3d at 1135.
-2-
On appeal, claimant contends that the ALJ 1) failed to properly develop the
record as to her son’s mental impairments and 2) applied the wrong standards
when he attached an adult psychiatric review form to his decision. She claims
that insufficient evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that her son is not
disabled under the Act.
After careful review of the record on appeal and consideration of
claimant’s arguments in light of the applicable legal standards, we conclude that
substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision that claimant’s son’s
impairments do not meet or equal a listed impairment. Further, we conclude that
the district court correctly decided this case. Therefore, for substantially the same
reasons set forth in the district court’s order, dated October 29, 1998, see
Appellant’s App., Vol. I at 6-15, the judgment of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
-3-