THOMAS WILLIAMS,Appellant v. Commissioner of Social Security

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 01-2241
___________
THOMAS WILLIAMS,Appellant
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
_______________________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
D.C. Civil Action No. 99-cv-02253
(Honorable John C. Lifland)
___________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 17, 2002
Before: SCIRICA and ROSENN, Circuit Judges, and KANE, District Judge*
(Filed May 23, 2002)
*The Honorable Yvette Kane, United States District Judge for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
__________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
__________________
SCIRICA, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a denial of disability benefits under the Social
Security Act. Appellant claims the Commissioner of Social Security's determination
was not supported by substantial evidence in the record. He also appeals the denial
of his motion to compel discovery before the District Court.
We will affirm. I.
Thomas Williams has been trying unsuccessfully to receive social security
disability benefits for the past sixteen years. The facts of the case have been
well documented during that time period. Williams has been tested and found to have
a verbal I.Q. in the mid-60s. He has a first-grade education and is illiterate.
But he can carry out simple three-step instructions. Williams managed to hold
gainful employment for more than 20 years for a steel drum company. After the steel
company closed, Williams worked for a short time as a security guard a position
that is normally performed at a light, unskilled level. Williams also suffers from
diabetes and arthritis. But he is able to walk or sit for six hours in an
eight-hour workday.
In 1992, we affirmed the Social Security Appeals Council's denial of disability
for the period before January 30, 1991. Williams v. Sullivan, 970 F.2d 1178 (3d
Cir. 1992). While his first petition was under consideration, Williams again
claimed disability as of October 30, 1986. In 1999, the Appeals Council rejected
Williams' request to reconsider the period between October 30, 1986 and January 29,
1991 as res judicata. Considering only the period from January 30, 1991 through
March 31, 1992, the Appeals Council again denied disability finding Williams' able
to perform past relevant work as a security guard.
II.
We review decisions to deny disability on a substantial evidence basis. 42
U.S.C. 405(g) (1991). Williams claims the Appeals Council erred in its
determination under 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(d) (1985). But the record contains
substantial evidence to support the Appeals Council's determination that Williams'
impairments did not equal those listed in Appendix 1.
Williams also claims error under 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(e) (1985). Substantial
evidence in the record supports the Appeals Council's determination that Williams
could engage in his relevant past work as a security guard. Therefore, the findings
of the Appeals Council are conclusive.
Williams claims the Appeals Council erred by applying res judicata to the
question of disability prior to January 30, 1991, after the ALJ reopened the period
for reconsideration. The Appeals Council partially vacated the ALJ's determination
because Williams' previous application had become final when the Supreme Court
Page 1

-- 1 of 2 --

denied certiorari. Williams v. Shalala, 507 U.S. 924 (1993). We lack jurisdiction
to review the Appeals Council's discretionary decision to apply res judicata in such
a situation. See Tobak v. Apfel, 195 F.3d 183, 187 (3d Cir. 1999).
Finally, Williams claims the District Court improperly denied his motion to
compel the Commissioner to produce documents relating to: (1) the changes in 12.05
regarding mental retardation in the Commissioner's Listing of Impairments at 20
C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. P, Appendix I; and (2) any data prepared in response to the
1992 General Accounting Office (GAO) report entitled "Social Security: Racial
Difference in Disability Decisions Warrants Further Investigation." The District
Court has power to order taking additional evidence upon petitioner's showing that
new and material evidence exists and good cause why it was not incorporated into the
record at a prior proceeding. 42 U.S.C. 405(g).
Williams initially filed for disability benefits on October 20, 1987, two years
after the publication of amended 12.05 of the Commissioner's Listing of
Impairments which changed the criteria for proving mental retardation. Therefore,
Williams' seeks to discover evidence that existed at the time of his earliest
administrative hearings and he does not show good cause for failing to incorporate
it into the administrative record. Additionally, Williams' request for data
related to the 1992 GAO study was properly denied as he failed to show new evidence
existed that was material. III.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
/s/ Anthony J. Scirica
Circuit Judge
DATED: May 23, 2002
Page 2

-- 2 of 2 --