Mejonah Pollard v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MEJONAH POLLARD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-17344
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00563-WBS-CMK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 18, 2017**
Before: D.W. NELSON, TROTT, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Mejonah Pollard appeals the district court’s decision affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s decision that, as an adult, she no longer was
eligible for the supplemental security income (“SSI”) that she had received as a
FILED
APR 19 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

child pursuant to Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, and we affirm. See Ghanim v. Colvin, 763
F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th Cir. 2014).
After Pollard reached age eighteen, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”)
properly redetermined her eligibility for benefits, applying the standards for adult
SSI applicants, without deference to the prior disability finding and award of
child’s SSI. See 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(H)(iii); 20 C.F.R. § 416.987(a)-(b);
Social Security Ruling 11-2p § IV(E)(2).
The ALJ did not err in finding, at step three of the sequential evaluation
process, that Pollard’s impairment of borderline intellectual functioning did not
meet Listing 12.05C or 12.05D because an examining psychologist’s report and
test results showed that Pollard’s IQ score was above the range set forth in those
adult listings. See Kennedy v. Colvin, 738 F.3d 1172, 1174, 1177-78 (9th Cir.
2013) (holding that a claimant cannot meet or medically equal Listing 12.05C or D
if her IQ score is higher than 70). Substantial evidence supports the
Commissioner’s conclusion that, despite another psychologist’s report submitted to
the Appeals Council, Pollard’s impairment was insufficiently severe to meet or
equal the adult listings. See Ghanim, 763 F.3d at 1159; Brewes v. Comm’r of Soc.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157, 1163 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that when the Appeals
Council considers new evidence, it becomes part of the administrative
record, and the court must consider it in reviewing the Commissioner’s decision
for substantial evidence). The Commissioner was not required to consider an
examining psychologist’s report and IQ test results obtained when Pollard was age
fourteen. See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, § 112.00D10 (providing that IQ
tests obtained between ages 7 and 16 are considered current for two years when the
IQ is 40 or above); Hiler v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding
that an ALJ need not consider evidence that is neither significant nor probative).
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --