Filed: Jun. 13, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-13-2005 Briggs v. Comm Social Security Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-3588 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005 Recommended Citation "Briggs v. Comm Social Security" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1023. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1023 This decision is brought to you for free and open access
Summary: Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-13-2005 Briggs v. Comm Social Security Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-3588 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005 Recommended Citation "Briggs v. Comm Social Security" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1023. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1023 This decision is brought to you for free and open access b..
More
Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-13-2005
Briggs v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-3588
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Briggs v. Comm Social Security" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1023.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1023
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________________
NO. 04-3588
____________________
SHAUNETTE BRIGGS, c/o FAYE BRIGGS,
Appellant
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
_______________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. No. 03-cv-01693)
District Judge: Honorable Garrett E. Brown, Jr.
______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a):
June 7, 2005
Before: FUENTES, VAN ANTWERPEN and BECKER, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: June 13, 2005)
________________________
OPINION
________________________
BECKER, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal by Faye Briggs from an order of the District Court granting
summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security on Ms. Briggs’ claim
for Social Security Insurance (“SSI”) benefits on behalf of her minor daughter Shaunette.
The case has already been the subject of an extensive and detailed Memorandum Opinion
by Judge Garrett Brown, who concluded that substantial evidence supported the
Commissioner’s decision. On plenary review, we find ourselves in agreement with Judge
Brown, hence we affirm. Because the parties are fully familiar with the background facts
and procedural history we need not set them forth, and we limit our discussion to our
ratio decidendi.
1. First, Ms. Briggs asserts that the ALJ misapplied the law by failing to properly
evaluate all of the medical evidence, in violation of our decision in Cotter v. Harris,
642
F.2d 700, 705, reh’g denied,
650 F.2d 481 (3d Cir. 1981). We disagree. The ALJ
reviewed medical evidence from Saint Peter’s University Hospital; school assessments
from the New Brunswick Public School System; and scheduled consultative examinations
by Dr. Sam Wilchfort, Naznin Abdul Rahim, and Dr. Anna Marie Resnikoff. He also
considered and evaluated Ms. Briggs’ testimony and the testimony of the child. He thus
considered all the relevant medical sources in the record. This comprehensive review
satisfies Cotter.
2. Second, Briggs takes issue with the ALJ’s severity analysis at step two of the
20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4) test. Briggs is incorrect. The records of the New Brunswick
Public School System, including the evaluations of Naznin Abdul Rahim (speech and
language ability) and Dr. Anna Marie Resnikoff (psychiatric evaluation), as well as the
2
professional opinion of these evaluators that Shaunette was uncooperative during testing,
all support the ALJ’s conclusion that the child did not have a severe impairment. This
conclusion was corroborated by the opinions of three state agency medical experts.
3. Ms. Briggs contends that, because Shaunette was considered to be “multiply
handicapped” by the school system, she had a severe impairment. However, as Judge
Brown correctly explained in his opinion, the term “multiply handicapped” merely made
Shaunette eligible for Special Education and Related Services. That language in no way
established that Shaunette was disabled for the purposes of eligibility for SSI benefits. It
is, of course, not the presence of the impairment, but the extent of its limiting effect
which determines if a condition is severe. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). Shaunette’s school
records do not demonstrate more than minimal functional limitations. Additionally,
Shaunette’s teachers though she had good skills and potential.
4. Ms. Briggs also submits that the letter from social worker Keith Carter supports
her claim that Shaunette’s limitation were severe. However, this letter does not discuss
the severity of Shaunette’s condition, and hence cannot be used to support the conclusion
that Shaunette’s condition was severe. At all events, even if this were to be deemed
contradictory evidence, that does not matter if there is substantial evidence supporting the
Commissioner’s decision, and there is.
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.1
1
We find no basis to remand to allow a child psychologist to give testimony regarding
the nature and extent of Shaunette’s psychiatric impairments. The record already contains
3
findings of three medical experts who evaluated Shaunette’s psychiatric condition.
4