Samuels v. Colvin
Filing
23
OPINION AND ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge John K. Larkins IIIs Final Report and Recommendation 21 and AFFIRMING the decision of the Commissioner. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 11/30/16. (ddm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
JOYCE RATHER, for minor J.S.,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:15-cv-1474-WSD
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge John K. Larkins III’s
Final Report and Recommendation [21] (“R&R”). The R&R recommends the
Court affirm the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration (the “Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff Joyce Rather’s (“Plaintiff”)
application for supplemental security income (“SSI”) on behalf of her minor son,
Claimant J.S. (“Claimant”).
I.
BACKGROUND1
A.
Procedural History and ALJ’s Decision
On May 2, 2012, Plaintiff applied for SSI disability benefits on behalf of
Claimant, alleging disability beginning January 1, 2008, based on attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”), asthma, and hearing loss in his right ear.
(Tr. 40-41, 192-98). The application was denied initially and on reconsideration.
(Tr. 113, 126). Plaintiff filed a timely written request for a hearing before an ALJ,
and, on July 10, 2013, an administrative hearing was held before the ALJ.
(Tr. 36-53). At the hearing, Plaintiff amended Claimant’s alleged onset date to
May 2, 2012, the date on which his application was filed. (Tr. 40).
On August 2, 2013, the ALJ issued a decision finding that Claimant was not
disabled and, thus, not eligible for SSI payments. (Tr. 18-30). At the time of the
ALJ’s decision, Claimant was eight years old. (Tr. 21, 30, 192). The ALJ found
that Claimant had severe impairments of ADHD and hearing loss in the right ear,
but that the impairments did not meet, medically equal, or functionally equal an
impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (Tr. 21-30). At
1
The facts are taken from the R&R and the record. The parties have not
objected to any specific facts in the R&R, and the Court finds no plain error in
them. The Court thus adopts the facts set out in the R&R. See Garvey v. Vaughn,
993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993).
2
step three of the sequential analysis, the ALJ concluded that Claimant had no
limitation in the domain of moving about and manipulating objects, and less than
marked limitation in the remaining five functional domains. (Tr. 23-30). The ALJ
thus found Claimant not disabled. (Tr. 30). Plaintiff requested review of the
hearing decision with the Appeals Council. (Tr. 13). On March 6, 2015, the
Appeals Council denied the request for review, (Tr. 1-3), making the ALJ’s
decision the final decision of the Commissioner. On April 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed
this action.
B.
The Magistrate Judge’s R&R
Plaintiff presented a single issue on appeal: whether the ALJ erred by
considering medical records from November 2011 through January 2012, before
Claimant’s amended alleged onset date of May 2, 2012. On November 7, 2016,
the Magistrate Judge issued his R&R. The Magistrate Judge found that it was
appropriate for the ALJ to consider medical records from the 12-month period
preceding the month in which Claimant filed his application. The Magistrate
Judge thus recommends the Court affirm the decision of the Commissioner
denying Plaintiff’s claim for SSI. Plaintiff did not file any objections to the R&R.
3
II.
LEGAL STANDARDS
A.
Review of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams
v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). A district judge
“shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). Where, as here, no party has objected to the report and
recommendation, the Court conducts only a plain error review of the record.
United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).
B.
Review of a Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
A court must “review the Commissioner’s decision to determine if it is
supported by substantial evidence and based upon proper legal standards.” Lewis
v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1439 (11th Cir. 1997). “Substantial evidence is more
than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept
as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. at 1440. “We may not decide the facts
anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute our judgment for that of the
[Commissioner].” Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240 n.8 (11th Cir. 2004).
4
C.
Analysis for Childhood Disability Claims
A child under the age of 18 is disabled, and thus entitled to SSI benefits, if
the child “has a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, which
results in marked and severe functional limitations, and which can be expected to
result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous
period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(C)(i). The Social
Security regulations define “marked and severe functional limitations” as “a level
of severity that meets, medically equals, or functionally equals the listings.” 20
C.F.R. § 416.902 (2007). As in all Social Security cases, the claimant bears the
burden of establishing the existence of a disability. See Young ex rel. A.C.Y.S.
v. Astrue, No. 1:11-CV-2447-TWT-ECS, 2012 WL 6760264, at *6 (N.D. Ga. Nov.
27, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, 2013 WL 28247 (N.D. Ga.
Jan. 2, 2013).
The regulations provide a three-step sequential evaluation process for
determining whether a child is disabled:
1.
First, the ALJ determines whether the child engaged in substantial
gainful activity. If so, he is not disabled.
2.
If, as in most cases, the child is not engaged in substantial gainful
activity, the ALJ determines whether the child has a physical or
mental impairment which, whether individually or in combination
with one or more other impairments, is a severe impairment. If the
impairment is not severe, the child is not disabled.
5
3.
If there is a severe impairment, the ALJ determines whether the
child’s impairment meets the 6 durational requirement, and meets,
medically equals, or functionally equals in severity an impairment
listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. If yes, then the
child is disabled.
See 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(a)-(d); see also Parks ex rel. D.P. v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec.
Admin., 783 F.3d 847, 850 (11th Cir. 2015); Shinn ex rel. Shinn v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec., 391 F.3d 1276, 1278-79 (11th Cir. 2004).
To determine if a child’s impairment or combination of impairments
functionally equals a listed impairment, the ALJ must find an “extreme” limitation
in one domain of functioning, or show a “marked” limitation in two domains.
20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(a). Domains are defined as “broad areas of functioning
intended to capture all of what a child can or cannot do.” Id. § 416.926a(b)(1). A
“marked” limitation in a domain means that the child’s impairment “interferes
seriously with [his or her] ability to independently initiate, sustain, or complete
activities.” Id. § 416.926a(e)(2). A “marked” limitation is “more than moderate,”
but “less than extreme”—i.e., the equivalent of functioning one would expect to
find on standardized testing with scores that are at least two, but less than three,
standard deviations below the mean. Id. § 416.926a(e)(2)(i). An “extreme”
limitation in a domain means that the child’s impairment “interferes very seriously
with [his or her] ability to independently initiate, sustain, or complete activities.”
6
Id. § 416.926a(e)(3)(i). An “extreme” limitation is “more than marked,” and is the
rating given to the most severe limitations, where test scores are three standard
deviations or more below the mean. Id.
There are six domains of functioning to be considered: (1) acquiring and
using information; (2) attending and completing tasks; (3) interacting and relating
with others; (4) moving about and manipulating objects; (5) caring for oneself; and
(6) health and physical well-being. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(b)(1)
III.
ANALYSIS
Social Security regulations provide that the Agency “will develop [a
claimant’s] complete medical history for at least the 12 months preceding the
month in which [the claimant] files [an] application.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(d).
The Magistrate Judge found that, because the records on which Claimant contends
the ALJ improperly relied are from the 12-month period preceding the month in
which Claimant filed his application, it was appropriate for the ALJ to consider the
information.
The Magistrate Judge noted Plaintiff may be arguing that she can
unilaterally prevent an ALJ from considering information predating the alleged
onset date simply by stating that Claimant’s disability began less than 12 months
7
before he filed his application. In rejecting this argument, the Magistrate Judge
relied on 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(d), which provides, in pertinent part:
If you say that your disability began less than 12 months before you
filed your application, we will develop your complete medical history
beginning with the month you say your disability began unless we
have reason to believe that your disability began earlier.
20 C.F.R. § 416.912(d)(2) (emphasis added). The Magistrate Judge found that
there “is no legitimate dispute that the alleged impairments in this
case . . . manifested themselves before May 2, 2012.” (R&R at 9). The Magistrate
Judge concluded that the ALJ was not prohibited from considering information
from November 2011 through January 2012, and thus recommends the Court
affirm the decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff’s claim for SSI. The
Court finds no plain error in these findings and recommendation, and the decision
of the Commissioner is affirmed. See Slay, 714 F.2d at 1095.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge John K. Larkins III’s
Final Report and Recommendation [21] is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is
AFFIRMED.
8
SO ORDERED this 30th day of November, 2016.
9
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?