Wesley v. Apfel

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-20854
Summary Calendar
LEON WESLEY, a child by
Paula Wesley, His Mother,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER
OF THE UNITED STATES SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-98-CV-3613
- - - - - - - - - -
July 18, 2000
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Leon Wesley appeals the district court’s summary judgment
affirming the Commissioner’s decision denying supplemental
security income under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Wesley argues that his
lack of academic development, low IQ, obesity, inadequate social
functioning, and inadequate personal functioning and
concentration reflect his disability. Wesley argues that the
merger of cognitive and communicative areas of functioning into a

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 99-20854
-2-
single area of functioning violates the Equal Protection Clause
and that a remand is required because he did not effectively
waive his right to counsel, the hearing was brief, and additional
witnesses and documents were available.
The Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial
evidence. Harris v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 413, 417 (5th Cir. 2000).
Wesley has not shown that the “merger” was an arbitrary
classification utterly lacking in rational justification and not
rationally related to legitimate goals. Weinberger v. Salfi, 422
U.S. 749, 768-69 (1975). Wesley is not entitled to a remand. He
has failed to show any prejudice from the lack of counsel, the
shortness of the hearing, or the manner in which the
administrative law judge questioned Wesley’s mother because the
additional information is cumulative or immaterial, and it would
not have led to a different conclusion. Haywood v. Sullivan, 888
F.2d at 1463, 1471 (5th Cir. 1989); Clark v. Schweiker, 652 F.2d
399, 403 (5th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, the judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --