## Facts

- Cristina Rossello sought Title II disabled adult child benefits based on her father’s insured status, requiring continuous disability before age 22.
- She had a documented history of serious mental illness, including treatment during her late teens and institutionalization.
- After age 22, she held several jobs, including 1986–1987 employment at a company partly owned by her uncle, with whom she lived.
- The ALJ treated her post-22 earnings, especially in 1986–1987, as substantial gainful activity (SGA), defeating the “continuous disability” requirement.
- During administrative review, the Appeals Council permitted an attempt to rebut the SGA presumption by showing the wages were subsidized in a sheltered, family setting.
- Her uncle stated he would not have hired her but for the family relationship, structured the job to keep her supervised in a safe environment, and assigned only simple tasks.
- The Appeals Council concluded there was no subsidy evidence sufficient to rebut the SGA presumption and denied benefits.
- The district court affirmed the agency’s denial; the claimant’s representative appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the agency’s finding that the claimant engaged in SGA after age 22, defeating eligibility for disabled adult child benefits.
2. Whether the agency unreasonably rejected or failed to account for evidence that the claimant’s family employment wages were subsidized and did not reflect competitive work.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment affirming the denial of benefits.
- The court held the agency’s denial was not supported by substantial evidence.
- The case was remanded to the district court with instructions to remand to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings.
- The court indicated the remand should be handled promptly given the extended delay since the 1993 application.

## Legal Principles

- Disabled adult child benefits require, among other elements, continuous disability beginning before age 22 and dependency on the insured parent.  
- Earnings above regulatory thresholds create a presumption of SGA, but that presumption may be rebutted when earnings are subsidized, including in sheltered or family employment where pay exceeds the economic value of the work performed.
- An agency decision must be supported by substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence a reasonable factfinder could accept as adequate; review is deferential but not perfunctory.
- The agency must address materially contrary evidence and may not rely on earnings figures alone when unrebutted evidence indicates those earnings may be inflated by subsidy or special accommodations.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit required a remand because the agency’s SGA finding rested on earnings figures while discounting record evidence that the claimant’s family-based job was sheltered and potentially subsidized, rendering the denial unsupported by substantial evidence.


Rossello v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 1181 (D.C. Cir. 2008)