Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Nancy A. Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security, 11th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    39 views3 pages
    Nancy Wilson appealed the denial of her application for disability benefits to the district court. She argued that the administrative law judge (ALJ) should have found her disabled due to evidence of intellectual disability, but she did not present that evidence to the ALJ. While she later submitted IQ testing from age 12 to the Appeals Council, the court will not consider evidence that was not presented to the ALJ. As Wilson only challenges the ALJ's decision and not the Appeals Council's denial of review, and the new evidence of intellectual disability was not part of the record before the ALJ, the district court affirmed the denial of benefits.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-04-12 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-14474

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Nancy Wilson appealed the denial of her application for disability benefits to the district court. She argued that the administrative law judge (ALJ) should have found her disabled due to evidence of intellectual disability, but she did not present that evidence to the ALJ. While she later submitted IQ testing from age 12 to the Appeals Council, the court will not consider evidence that was not presented to the ALJ. As Wilson only challenges the ALJ's decision and not the Appeals Council's denial of review, and the new evidence of intellectual disability was not part of the record before the ALJ, the district court affirmed the denial of benefits.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    39 views3 pages

    Nancy A. Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security, 11th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Nancy Wilson appealed the denial of her application for disability benefits to the district court. She argued that the administrative law judge (ALJ) should have found her disabled due to evidence of intellectual disability, but she did not present that evidence to the ALJ. While she later submitted IQ testing from age 12 to the Appeals Council, the court will not consider evidence that was not presented to the ALJ. As Wilson only challenges the ALJ's decision and not the Appeals Council's denial of review, and the new evidence of intellectual disability was not part of the record before the ALJ, the district court affirmed the denial of benefits.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    Case: 15-14474

    Date Filed: 04/12/2016

    Page: 1 of 3

    [DO NOT PUBLISH]

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 15-14474
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-00066-MP-GRJ

    NANCY A. WILSON,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Florida
    ________________________
    (April 12, 2016)
    Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, JORDAN, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit
    Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Case: 15-14474

    Date Filed: 04/12/2016

    Page: 2 of 3

    Nancy Wilson appeals the district courts order affirming the Social Security
    Commissioners denial of her application for a period of disability and disability
    insurance benefits. She contends that the administrative law judge (ALJ) should
    have granted her application based on evidence of her intellectual disability.
    Wilson sought disability benefits based on vertigo, depression, numbness,
    and fibromyalgia. After the Social Security Administration denied her initial
    application and her request for reconsideration, she sought a hearing before an
    ALJ. At that hearing, she presented evidence that she suffered from pain and
    swelling throughout her lower body, vertigo, sleep apnea, hearing loss, major
    depressive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The ALJ concluded that,
    while she had a number of severe impairments, none of them met or equaled one of
    the impairments listed in the Code of Federal Regulations. He denied Wilsons
    application, finding that she could still perform jobs that existed in significant
    numbers in the national economy.
    Wilson requested review of the ALJs decision by the Appeals Council. She
    attached, for the first time, evidence that IQ testing done when she was 12 years
    old showed that she had a low IQ. She argued that the ALJ should have found that
    she was disabled because she had an intellectual disability that met the
    requirements of Listing 12.05 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The Appeals
    Council denied Wilsons request for review, concluding that the additional
    2

    Case: 15-14474

    Date Filed: 04/12/2016

    Page: 3 of 3

    evidence did not provide a basis for changing the ALJs decision. Wilson,
    represented by counsel, filed a civil action in the district court, which affirmed the
    denial of disability benefits.
    Wilson, still represented by counsel, now argues that substantial evidence
    does not support the ALJs decision because she provided evidence showing that
    she has an intellectual disability that meets Listing 12.05. Where the ALJ denied
    benefits and the Appeals Council denied review of that decision, we review the
    ALJs decision as the Commissioners final decision. Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d
    1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001). [W]hen the [Appeals Council] has denied review,
    we will look only to the evidence actually presented to the ALJ in determining
    whether the ALJs decision is supported by substantial evidence. Falge v. Apfel,
    150 F.3d 1320, 1323 (11th Cir. 1998). If the applicant attacks only the ALJs
    decision, we may not consider evidence that was presented to the Appeals Council
    but not to the ALJ. See id. at 1324.
    Wilson does not challenge the Appeals Councils denial of review. She
    argues only that the ALJs decision was not supported by substantial evidence
    because he did not address the evidence of her intellectual disability. But she
    never presented that evidence to him. We cannot fault the ALJ for failing to
    consider evidence that he never saw. See id. at 132324.
    AFFIRMED.
    3

    You might also like