Ortibez v. Colvin
OPINION AND ORDER re: 11 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD filed by Carolyn W. Colvin, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 3/09/2017. (slibi, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 16-cv-00732-MJW
RAE JEAN ORTIBEZ on behalf of B.J.P.B.,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. WATANABE
United States Magistrate Judge
The government determined that Plaintiff’s minor child, Claimant, is not disabled
for purposes of the Social Security Act. (AR1 14). Plaintiff has asked this Court to review
that decision. The Court has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and both parties
have agreed to have this case decided by a U.S. Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c). (Docket No. 13).
Standard of Review
In Social Security appeals, the Court reviews the decision of the administrative
law judge (“ALJ”) to determine whether the factual findings are supported by substantial
evidence and whether the correct legal standards were applied. See Pisciotta v. Astrue,
500 F.3d 1074, 1075 (10th Cir. 2007). “Substantial evidence is such evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It requires more
than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance.” Raymond v. Astrue, 621 F.3d 1269,
All references to “AR” refer to the sequentially numbered Administrative Record filed in this
case. (Docket Nos. 11 through 11-10).
1271-72 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court “should, indeed
must, exercise common sense” and “cannot insist on technical perfection.” KeyesZachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156, 1166 (10th Cir. 2012). The Court cannot reweigh the
evidence or its credibility. Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080, 1084 (10th Cir. 2007).
A person under the age of 18 is disabled within the meaning of the Social
Security Act if he or she has “a medically determinable physical or mental impairment or
combination of impairments that causes marked and severe functional limitations, and
that can be expected to cause death or that has lasted or can be expected to last for a
continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.906. No individual under
the age of 18 will be considered disabled if he or she is engaging in substantial gainful
The Social Security regulations set forth a three-step sequential process to
determine whether an individual under the age of 18 is disabled under Title XVI of the
Social Security Act. 20 C.F.R. § 416.924. At step one, a child will not be deemed
disabled if he or she is working and such work constitutes substantial gainful activity. If
the child is not engaging in substantial gainful activity, the analysis proceeds to the
second step. Id. at § 416.924(a) and (b). At step two, it must be determined whether the
child suffers from a medically determinable impairment or a combination of impairments
that is severe. If the child has an impairment or combination of impairments that is not
severe, the child is not disabled and the analysis is terminated. If the impairment or
combination of impairments is severe, the analysis proceeds to step three. Id. at §
416.924(a) and (c). At step three, a child's impairment or combination of impairments
must meet, medically equal, or functionally equal the severity of the listings found in 20
C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart. P, Appendix 1 (the “Listings”), and the duration requirement of
at least 12 months. Id. at § 416.924(a) and (d).
In this case, the ALJ determined that Claimant’s asthma is a severe impairment.
(AR 17). However, at step three, the ALJ further determined that Claimant’s asthma
does not functionally equal the severity of the Listings. (AR 17). As a result, the ALJ
determined that Claimant is not disabled. (AR 26).
Plaintiff asserts two errors: first, that the ALJ “committed harmful error of law in
failing to discuss, assess, or weigh the opinion from Claimant’s 3rd grade teacher
despite the fact it indicated more serious limitations from Claimant’s asthma; and
second, that the ALJ “committed harmful error of law when failing to properly assess
whether Claimant medically equaled Listing 103.03.” (Docket No. 15 at 3).
The ALJ noted that he considered “all the relevant evidence,” including
“information from . . . school teachers” (AR 17). He specifically discussed and relied on
Claimant’s second grade teacher’s statement, but did not specifically mention
Claimant’s third grade teacher’s statement. Plaintiff contends that this was error
because the third grade teacher’s statement indicated “more serious limitations from
Claimant’s asthma.” (Docket No. 15 at 15).
The ALJ is not required to explicitly discuss all of the evidence in the record. See
Wilson v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 1136, 1148 (10th Cir. 2010) (“There is obviously no
requirement that the ALJ reference everything in the administrative record.”). Further,
the Tenth Circuit’s general practice is to take a lower tribunal at its word when it states
that it has considered a matter. See Flaherty v. Astrue, 515 F.3d 1067, 1071 (10th Cir.
2007). Here, the ALJ noted that he considered “relevant evidence from . . . school
teachers . . . .” (AR 17). The Court will not second-guess this assertion. The question
then is whether the ALJ was required to address the third grade teacher’s statement in
his Decision because it was “significantly probative.” See Briggs v. Massanari, 248 F.3d
1235, 1239 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting Clifton v. Chater, 79 F.3d 1007, 1009-10 (10th Cir.
1996)). (“Although the ALJ need not discuss all of the evidence in the record, he may
not ignore evidence that does not support his decision, especially when that evidence is
Claimant’s third grade teacher, Ms. Hwang, submitted a Teacher Questionnaire
that was sent to Claimant’s school as a result of Claimant’s appeal of the initial denial of
her application for disability. (AR 157-165). Ms. Hwang was Claimant’s third grade
general education teacher and noted that Claimant “would miss a lot of days during the
week because of illness or the weather was too cold.” (AR 158). She further noted that
Claimant “needs a lot of support because she misses school often. She is not proficient
in her grade level and this is due to missed school days.” (AR 160). Ms. Hwang also
explained that Claimant “has severe asthma that affects her school days. She has gone
home early or has complained about tight chest pains which eventually lead her into
going home early.” Further down on the same page of the Questionnaire, Ms. Hwang
noted that she was “not quite sure what the illness is but [she’s] assuming that it has to
do with a shortness of breath.” (AR 164). Ms. Hwang indicated that Claimant had
various problems learning new material, comprehending certain subjects, applying
previously learned material, and completing her assignments. (AR 159-160). Ms.
Hwang’s assessment is strongly based on Claimant’s frequent absences which Ms.
Hwang links with Claimant’s asthma.
In contrast, Claimant’s second grade teacher’s Teacher Questionnaire, on which
the ALJ relied heavily, makes clear that while Claimant missed class often, Claimant
was capable of learning and excelling in school when she attended:
It appears to me that [Claimant] is fully capable of learning however she
lacks exposure. When in school, consistently, I noticed great growth. After
long absences, I saw a major decline in the growth that was previously
gained. She has a strong and eager spirit therefore when given materials
at or just above her level, she succeeds. Most activities were leveled to
support her academically.
As Plaintiff notes, Claimant’s December 13, 2013 Student Diagnostic Report
indicated that Claimant’s math and reading scores dictated that “urgent intervention”
was required. (AR 169-170). In addition, the second grade teacher’s Questionnaire, on
which the ALJ relied heavily, was completed on June 8, 2013 (AR 148), but the third
grade teacher’s Questionnaire, which was not specifically mentioned by the ALJ, was
completed on February 19, 2014 (AR 165). Therefore, the third grade teacher’s analysis
was closer in time to the ALJ’s May 14, 2014 Decision (AR 26) and was supported by
other evidence in the records, the test scores. Because the third grade teacher’s
Questionnaire at least in part contradicts the ALJ’s conclusions and may be significantly
probative, the Court finds that this case should be remanded to the ALJ for further
consideration. Notably, the Court takes no position with regard to whether the third
grade teacher’s Questionnaire should change the outcome of the ALJ’s Decision or
whether it is in fact contradicted by other more significant evidence in the record.
Instead, the Court remands so that the ALJ can discuss the third grade teacher’s
Questionnaire so that the parties can better understand the conclusion that the ALJ
ultimately draws with regard to Claimant’s functional equivalence.
Because the Court concludes that this case should be remanded to the ALJ for
further consideration with regard to the first issue raised by Plaintiff, the Court does not
analyze Plaintiff’s second argument in favor of remand.
For the reasons set forth above, the Commissioner’s decision is REMANDED for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Dated this 9th day of March, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Michael J. Watanabe
MICHAEL J. WATANABE
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?