Burke v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 25

OPINION: Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 22 ) is ALLOWED, and Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Complaint (d/e 18 ) is DENIED. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. THIS CASE IS CLOSED. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Entered by Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins on 5/25/2016. (MJ, ilcd)

E-FILED

Thursday, 26 May, 2016 03:45:33 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
LORRIE BURKE on behalf of
D.L., a minor,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 14-cv-3335

OPINION
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
Plaintiff Lorrie Burke (Burke) appeals from the denial of her minor
daughter D.L.’s application for Supplemental Security Income Disability
Benefits (SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. §§
1381a and 1382c.1 This appeal is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g)
and 1383(c). Burke has filed a Brief in Support of Complaint (d/e 18), and
Defendant Commissioner of Social Security has filed a Motion for Summary
Affirmance (d/e 22). The parties consented, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)

1

Burke’s last name was different at the time she filed the application for SSI. See R. 161. Her last name
was the same as D.L. Burke’s last name changed to Burke sometime after September 20, 2013. See
Certified Transcript of Proceedings before the Social Security Administration (d/e 11) (R.), 7. Burke
apparently took the last name of D.L.’s father. The Court uses “Burke” to avoid using D.L.’s last name in
the Opinion.

Page 1 of 41

to proceed before this Court. Consent to the Exercise of Jurisdiction by a
United States Magistrate and Reference Order entered July 9, 2015
(d/e 15). For the reasons set forth below, the Decision of the
Commissioner is affirmed.
STATEMENTOF FACTS
D.L. is a girl who was born on May 22, 2000. D.L. suffers from
attention disorder hyperactivity disorder, combined type (ADHD),
oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), and depressive disorder. R. 24.
On May 18, 2009, D.L. took a battery of intelligence tests at school.
She took the Wechsler’s Adult Intelligence Scale IV test (WISC IV) and
scored P104, V93, and F99. She took the Wechsler Individual
Achievement Test II (WIAT II) and scored 98 in reading, 105 in writing, and
102 in math. R. 221, 325. The 98 reading score was in the 45th percentile,
the 102 math score was in the 75th percentile, and the 105 writing score
was in the 63rd percentile. R. 204.
On December 12, 2010, psychiatrist Dr. Ronald G. St. Hill, M.D.,
prepared a psychiatric evaluation of D.L. for ADHD. R. 294-96. Dr. Hill
assessed ADHD inattentive type and assigned a Global Assessment of

Page 2 of 41

Functioning (GAF) Score of 53.2 D.L. lived with her father at this time. He
found no significant medical problems. D.L. reported that she previously
had psychiatric treatment and counseling for ADHD. Dr. Hill noted D.L.
showed some oppositional behavior at home but mostly in the context of
her father’s inability to set appropriate limits at home. D.L. was taking
Clonidine before bed to help her sleep. Dr. Hill recommended additional
medication. R. 296.
On July 25, 2011, Burke took D.L. to see psychiatrist Dr. David E.
Goldman, D.O., for a psychiatric evaluation. D.L. was living with Burke and
her brother and sister at this time. D.L. was polite and cooperative, and
maintained good eye contact. D.L. was responsive to all Dr. Goldman’s
questions. D.L. was oriented. D.L. showed no psychomotor agitation or
psychomotor retardation. D.L. had no eccentricities in speech. R. 318.
D.L. was attending Hannibal Middle School in Hannibal, Missouri. Burke
reported that D.L. had difficulty paying attention. Burke reported that she
was bipolar and D.L.’s father was bipolar, and Burke stated that she saw
“the same characteristics in her and her father as I see in myself. I’m

2

A GAF is measure of a clinician’s judgment as to the individual’s overall level of functioning or the
severity of the individual’s symptoms. American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed. Text Revision 2000), at 32-34.The American Psychiatric Association
no longer recommends the use of the GAF score. American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed. 2013) (DSM-5), at 16.

Page 3 of 41

bipolar and ADHD.” R. 319. Dr. Goldman assessed ADHD, combined and
rule/out bipolar disorder. Dr. Goldman assessed a GAF score of 45.
R. 319. Dr. Goldman prescribed Adderall and Risperdal. R. 320.
On August 25, 2011, D.L. and Burke saw Dr. Goldman. Burke
reported that the Adderall was ‘semi-working. It’s almost there but not
quite.” R. 317. Dr. Goldman’s mental status examination found normal
appearance, behavior, activity level, orientation, speech, affect, thought
process, insight, judgment, cognition and impulse control. Dr. Goldman
also found no delusions, hallucinations, or suicidal or homicidal ideations.
Dr. Goldman noted an absence of aggression, no psychosis, and no risk of
suicide or harm to others. Dr. Goldman increased the dosage of Adderall.
R. 317.
On October 14, 2011, D.L. and Burke saw Dr. Goldman. D.L. and
Burke reported that sometimes the medication worked and sometimes it did
not. Dr. Goldman’s mental status examination found normal appearance,
behavior, activity level, orientation, speech, affect, thought process, insight,
judgment, cognition and impulse control. Dr. Goldman also found no
delusions, hallucinations, or suicidal or homicidal ideations. Dr. Goldman
noted an absence of aggression, no psychosis, and no risk of suicide or

Page 4 of 41

harm to others. Dr. Goldman changed the dosages of Adderall and
Risperdal and added Hydroxyzine. R. 316.
On December 14, 2011, D.L. and Burke saw Dr. Goldman. D.L.
planned to visit with her father for two hours the next Saturday. Burke
reported that D.L. was fighting with her brother and sister. Burke reported
that school had been “okay.” D.L. and Burke reported that D.L.’s sleep
“fluctuated.” Dr. Goldman’s mental status examination found normal
appearance, behavior, activity level, orientation, speech, affect, thought
process, insight, judgment, cognition and impulse control. Dr. Goldman
also found no delusions, hallucinations, or suicidal or homicidal ideations.
Dr. Goldman noted an absence of aggression, no psychosis, and no risk of
suicide or harm to others. Dr. Goldman increased the dosage of Risperdal.
R. 315.
On January 30, 2012, D.L. and Burke saw Dr. Goldman. Burke
reported, “She does good at school. It’s when she gets home she won’t do
it.” Burke reported when D.L. took the Risperdal, “she’s a lot calmer.” D.L.
and Burke reported that D.L.’s sleep was good. Dr. Goldman’s mental
status examination found normal appearance, behavior, activity level,
orientation, speech, affect, thought process, insight, judgment, cognition
and impulse control. Dr. Goldman also found no delusions, hallucinations,
Page 5 of 41

or suicidal or homicidal ideations. Dr. Goldman noted an absence of
aggression, no psychosis, and no risk of suicide or harm to others.
Dr. Goldman changed the dosage of Risperdal. R. 314.
On February 9, 2012, D.L.’s sixth grade reading and English teacher
Jenni Sanders completed a Teacher Questionnaire. R. 208-15. Sanders
reported that D.L. was reading at a fifth grade level. Sanders reported that
D.L. was “absent a lot.” D.L. had 38 attendance incidents due to illness,
court, and transportation issues. R. 208.
The Teacher Questionnaire asked the teacher to evaluate the student
in six Domains listed in the Social Security regulations for evaluating the
functional abilities of children: Acquiring and Using Information; Attending
and Completing Tasks; Interacting and Relating with Others; Moving about
and Manipulating Objects; Caring for Herself; Health and Physical WellBeing . 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(d).
The Teacher Questionnaire listed ten subcategories under the
Domain of Acquiring and Using Information. Sanders opined that D.L. had
serious problems with five of these subcategories and very serious
problems with two of the subcategories. Sanders stated:
[D.L.] does not follow instructions. She refuses to try even on
the most basic assignments. She manipulates & deceives.
She often has asked to use the restroom, and has been caught
using the phone instead. She often comes to school unkept
Page 6 of 41

(sic) & unclean. [D.L.] does not come to class prepared with
homework or materials.
R. 209.
The Teacher Questionnaire listed thirteen subcategories in the
domain of Attending and Completing Tasks. Sanders opined that D.L. has
very serious problems in seven subcategories and serious problems in one
subcategory. Sanders stated:
[D.L.] will often respectfully listen to direction if spoken to
directly. Rarely does she comply with oral directions. She
refuses to read written directions. Her rate of work is due to her
unwillingness and lack of care and effort.
R. 210.
The Teacher Questionnaire listed thirteen subcategories in the
domain of Interacting and Relating with Others, and seven subcategories in
the domain of Moving about and Manipulating Objects. Sanders opined
that D.L. had no problems in any of the subcategories of either of these two
domains. R. 211-12.
The Teacher Questionnaire had ten subcategories in the Domain of
Caring for Himself or Herself. Sanders opined that D.L. had a very serious
problem in one of the ten subcategories, serious problems in two of the
subcategories, no problem in five of the subcategories, and an obvious

Page 7 of 41

problem in one subcategory.3 Sanders stated, “She only asks for help
before an immediate negative consequence.” R. 213.
The Teacher Questionnaire contained a final domain of Medical
Conditions and Medications/Health and Physical Well-Being. Sanders had
no opinions regarding this domain. Sanders stated that D.L. had
eyeglasses, but did not wear them. R. 214.
On February 16, 2012, D.L. and Burke saw Dr. Goldman. Burke
reported that D.L. was “starting to do better.” Burke reported that D.L.
received four F grades at school. Burke stated, “She doesn’t bring the
homework home.” D.L. reported that she felt that the medication helped.
Goldman’s mental status examination found normal appearance, behavior,
activity level, orientation, speech, affect, thought process, insight,
judgment, cognition and impulse control. Dr. Goldman also found no
delusions, hallucinations, or suicidal or homicidal ideations. Dr. Goldman
noted an absence of aggression, no psychosis, and no risk of suicide or
harm to others. Dr. Goldman left D.L.’s mediations unchanged.
On February 27, 2012, state agency psychologist Dr. Mark Altomari,
Ph.D., prepared a Childhood Disability Evaluation Form. R. 323-28. Dr.
Altomari opined that D.L. had less than marked impairments in Acquiring

3

The response to one of the categories was marked “unknown”.

Page 8 of 41

and Using Information, Attending and Completing Tasks, and Caring for
Herself; and no impairments in the Domains of Interacting and Relating
with Others, Moving About and Manipulating Objects, and Health and
Physical Well-Being. R. 325-26. Dr. Altomari stated D.L.’s WISC IV scores
put D.L. “in the average range.” Dr. Altomari stated that D.L.’s
achievement scores “indicate she is learning normally.” R. 325.
On March 7, 2012, Burke spoke by telephone to D.L.’s counselor
Community Service Specialist Karen Clayton, BS/CSS.4 Burke reported
that D.L. wrote a $10 check for Hoops for Heart at school. Burke had to go
to the school to pick up the check. R. 408. The next day D.L. and Burke
met with Clayton. D.L. received three days of IBS for issuing the “forged
check.”5 Clayton stated that D.L. “explained how it was an error in her
environment which could have been prevented.” D.L. reported that D.L.’s
aunt was upset. D.L. wrote a letter of apology presumably to her aunt.
Clayton counseled D.L. on making “positive” choices instead of “negative”
choices. R. 406.
On March 13, 2012, Burke canceled an appointment with Counselor
Clayton because D.L. wanted to stay all night with a friend. Burke reported
that D.L. “was learning to make better choices.” R. 405.
4

CSS stands for Community Service Specialist. See R. 427.
The Court assumes IBS stands for in-building suspension. From the context, the IBS is some form of
discipline administered by the school.
5

Page 9 of 41

On March 20, 2012, Burke spoke by telephone to counselor Clayton.
Burke reported that D.L. threw a fit at the dentist’s office. D.L. spoke to
Clayton and started crying. D.L. stated that she could not find her tray of
medications. Clayton coached D.L. on breathing techniques to calm down.
R. 404.
On April 2, 2012, D.L. and Burke saw Dr. Goldman. Burke reported
problems with temper tantrums. Burke stated, “It was so bad I had to call
the Crisis Line on her.” Burke reported that when she asked D.L. to do
something, D.L. would throw temper tantrums with yelling and screaming.
Burke reported also that the medications were “working good. It’s just the
defiance.” Burke also reported that D.L. was failing two classes in school.
Burke reported that D.L. was seeing counselor Clayton once a week.
Goldman’s mental status examination found normal appearance, behavior,
activity level, orientation, speech, affect, thought process, insight,
judgment, cognition and impulse control. Dr. Goldman also found no
delusions, hallucinations, or suicidal or homicidal ideations. Dr. Goldman
noted an absence of aggression, no psychosis, and no risk of suicide or
harm to others. Dr. Goldman continued the current treatment regimen.
R. 433.

Page 10 of 41

On April 12, 2012, D.L. met with Clayton at D.L.’s home after school.
D.L. was clean and well groomed. R. 365.
On April 18, 2012, D.L. and Burke met with counselor Clayton.
Clayton confirmed at this session that D.L. and her siblings “were doing
fine.” R. 364. On April 19, 2012, D.L. and Burke met with Clayton again.
Clayton noted that D.L. was making progress helping the family. D.L. was
choosing to work hard to clean the house. Burke and her sister
complimented D.L. for helping to clean the house. R. 362. D.L.’s family
was cleaning the house in anticipation of a visit from a DCFS
representative; the representative, however, did not show up as scheduled.
R. 364.
On June 14, 2012, D.L. and Burke met with counselor Clayton.
Clayton noted that D.L. was clean and well groomed. D.L. “identified
positive choices like ‘sticking to her chore chart and listening to her
mother.” R. 354.
On August 13, 2012, D.L. met with a new counselor Community
Support Specialist Megan Underhill, BSW/CSS. Underhill met with D.L. to
develop an “initial rapport” with D.L. Underhill also went with D.L. to
Hannibal Middle School to lower D.L.’s anxiety about the new school year
by helping D.L. find her classrooms and locker, and meet her new
Page 11 of 41

teachers. Underhill noted that “[D.L.’s] overall hygiene was lacking but
appeared clean.” R. 351.
On October 22, 2012, D.L.’s school district issued a new
Individualized Education Program (IEP) for D.L. The IEP stated that D.L.
had a hard time sitting still, staying on task, keeping attention, and focusing
on assignments. She also had problems turning in completed homework.
The IEP stated that as her strengths, “[D.L.] does very well with her fluency
and expression during reading time. She is a very agreeable young lady
and wishes to do well. It appears that she is doing better during 6th grade
than 7th.” R. 379. The IEP also stated D.L. did not exhibit behaviors that
impeded her learning or that of others. R. 382.
On June 27, 2012, D.L. and Burke saw Dr. Goldman. Burke reported
that D.L. was getting ready for a pageant scheduled for July 6-8, 2012.
Goldman’s mental status examination found normal appearance, behavior,
activity level, orientation, speech, affect, thought process, insight,
judgment, cognition and impulse control. Dr. Goldman also found no
delusions, hallucinations, or suicidal or homicidal ideations. Dr. Goldman
noted an absence of aggression, no psychosis, and no risk of suicide or
harm to others. Goldman continued the current treatment regimen.
R. 432.
Page 12 of 41

On August 20, 2012, D.L. and Burke saw Dr. Goldman. Burke
referred to D.L. as “Miss Attitude.” Burke reported that representatives of
the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) suggested
behavioral probation for D.L. Burke reported, “One minute she’s fine—the
next minute she blows up, the next minute she’s fine.” R. 431. Dr.
Goldman’s mental status examination found normal appearance, behavior,
activity level, orientation, speech, affect, thought process, insight,
judgment, cognition and impulse control. Dr. Goldman also found no
delusions, hallucinations, or suicidal or homicidal ideations. Dr. Goldman
noted an absence of aggression, no psychosis, and no risk of suicide or
harm to others. Goldman added Lexapro to D.L.’s treatment regimen at
Burke’s request. R. 431.
On August 23, 2012, D.L. was registered for the seventh grade at
Hannibal Middle School. Burke was listed as the primary parent for D.L.
The registration form listed as “Alternate Parent” Nikki Lyng, Juvenile
Officer. R. 372.
On August 28, 2012, D.L. and Burke saw D.L.’s counselor Underhill.
Underhill noted that D.L. was referred recently to the juvenile office. D.L.
reported that she was referred because “me and my siblings don’t get
along.” Underhill stated that an intensive in home services worker Jamie
Page 13 of 41

McCoy recommended moving D.L. to the Shiloh Christian Children’s Ranch
“if things do not get better within the home.” D.L. reported that her new
medication “makes me really tired and hard for me to get up in the
mornings.” R. 349.
On September 12, 2012, Dr. Goldman completed a form entitled,
“Medical and Functional Capacity Assessment.” R. 331-36. Dr. Goldman
diagnosed D.L. with ADHD, combined type; depression not otherwise
specified; and rule out of bipolar disorder. R. 331. To support his
diagnosis, Dr. Goldman stated that he relied on clinical findings and
objective signs of “Anger outbursts,” “Arguing with siblings,” and “Difficulty
focusing and concentrating.” R. 331.
Dr. Goldman opined that D.L. was moderately impaired in Acquiring
and Using Information; extremely impaired in Attending and Completing
Tasks; not impaired in Moving About and Manipulating Objects; markedly
impaired in Caring for Herself; and extremely impaired in her Health and
Physical Well-Being. R. 332-35. To support his opinion of D.L.’s extreme
impairment in Attending and Completing Tasks, Dr. Goldman’s stated that
D.L. was “unable to focus and complete tasks at home and at school.”
R. 333. To support his opinion of D.L.’s marked impairment in Caring for
Herself, Dr. Goldman’s cited, “mood instability.” R. 335. To support his
Page 14 of 41

opinion of extreme impairment in Health and Physical Well-Being, Dr.
Goldman cited, “Extreme mood lability and instability,” “Daily anger
outbursts,” and “Daily oppositional and defiant episodes.” R. 335.
Dr. Goldman opined that D.L.’s limitations in Interacting and Relating
with Others depended on the other individuals involved. Dr. Goldman
opined that D.L. was moderately impaired in interacting and relating with
age contemporaries; markedly impaired in interacting and relating with
adults and authority figures; and extremely impaired in interacting and
relating with her siblings. R. 334. To support these opinions, Dr. Goldman
stated that D.L. was, “unable to interact civilly [with] her siblings.” R. 334
Dr. Goldman concluded, “Pt. experiencing ADHD combined
type/Oppositional Defiant D/O, Depressive Disorder (with signs and
symptoms of Bipolar Disorder components).” R. 336.
On September 13, 2012, D.L. and Burke met with counselor
Underhill. D.L. made a “Calming Jar” at this session. The Calming Jar was
“meant to be used at times when [D.L.’s] feelings become so overwhelmed,
angry and or not in control.” Underhill noted that, “This activity challenged
[D.L.] to follow detailed instructions, maintain attentive behavior and
implement as needed.” D.L. completed the task during the session.
R. 345.
Page 15 of 41

On September 25, 2012, D.L. saw counselor Underhill. D.L. reported
that she was absent from school four times because of over sleeping and
was failing two classes as a result. D.L. planned to complete missing work
and extra credit projects to bring up her grades in these classes. Underhill
stated that D.L. and her brother were placed on probation by the Juvenile
Office for yelling in the home. D.L. was getting along better with her sister.
R. 453-54.
On January 9, 2013, Emilee Hill, MEC, LPC, prepared an Annual
Psychosocial/ Clinical Assessment (Annual Assessment) of D.L. for the
Missouri Department of Mental Health Division of Psychiatric Services
(Missouri Department). R. 422-27. Hill prepared the Annual Assessment
to determine whether the Missouri Department would continue to provide
service to D.L. At this time, D.L. lived with Burke, her father, her brother,
and her sister. Burke denied that that she had problems with D.L. stealing.
R. 425.
The mental status examination for the Annual Assessment noted
adequate hygiene, normal speech, cooperative behavior, and normal flow
of thought. D.L. denied any suicidal or homicidal ideations, hallucinations,
or delusions. R. 424.

Page 16 of 41

Burke stated that she wanted D.L. to continue to receive services
because “her temper, getting homework done on time, organization, to
keep her straight because she’s doing better on her medicines. Her grades
have started climbing.” D.L. stated that she wanted to continue working on
her attitude, “Work on screaming and yelling.” D.L. stated, “With my
medicine I focus better. And to get all my assignments in on time and
make good grades.” R. 423.
Burke reported that D.L. was on probation with the juvenile office.
D.L. stated that she was on probation for her attitude and that she would be
getting off probation in March 2013. R. 423.
D.L. reported that she continued to have outbursts of anger. Burke
reported that “once in a blue moon she gets physical.” R. 424. D.L.
reported that her medications helped with her anxiety, concentration, and
focus. D.L. denied any depressed mood, hallucinations, delusions, or
suicidal or homicidal ideations. Hill’s mental status examination of D.L. was
normal. R. 424.
D.L. reported that she was in the seventh grade at Hannibal Middle
School. Burke denied that D.L. had any discipline problems at school. D.L.
and Burke reported that she was having problems missing school work and

Page 17 of 41

was absent due to illness. D.L. reported she was getting Fs in some
classes and Cs or better in the rest. R. 425.
D.L. reported that at home she was “responsible for dishes,
bathroom, her room, and helping with laundry.” D.L. reported that she was
“pretty good” with her chores, and Burke reported that “sometimes she
does good.” Hill also noted that D.L. knew how to use the microwave and
could make small meals for herself, and D.L. sometimes helped with
grocery shopping and meal planning. R. 425.
The Annual Assessment listed D.L.’s diagnoses of ADHD combined
type; depressive disorder; oppositional/defiant disorder; and rule out bipolar
disorder. Hill listed a current GAF score of 41, with a past score of 44.
R. 424. Emilee Hill recommended providing continued services for D.L.
Dr. Goldman, counselor Underhill, and Underhill’s supervisor also signed
the Annual Assessment. R. 427. Representatives of the Missouri
Department prepared an Individual Treatment and Rehabilitation Plan for
D.L. Dr. Goldman participated in the preparation of the formulation of the
plan. The plan reiterated the GAF scores of 41 current and past score of
44. R. 435.
On January 31, 2013, D.L. and Burke saw Dr. Goldman. Burke
reported, “We’re good.” Burke reported that D.L. was bringing up her
Page 18 of 41

grades. D.L. stated, “I brought my 2 F’s up to B’s.” Dr. Goldman’s mental
status examination found normal appearance, behavior, activity level,
orientation, speech, affect, thought process, insight, judgment, cognition
and impulse control. Dr. Goldman also found no delusions, hallucinations,
or suicidal or homicidal ideations. Dr. Goldman noted an absence of
aggression, no psychosis, and no risk of suicide or harm to others. Dr.
Goldman continued D.L.’s treatment regimen. Dr. Goldman noted that D.L.
would try taking the Hydroxyzine to help her sleep. R. 429.
On June 13, 2013, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held an
evidentiary hearing on D.L.’s application for SSI. D.L. and Burke appeared
along with their counsel. R. 40-74.
D.L. testified that she lived with her mother, father, brother, and
sister. She was born on May 22, 2000, and was thirteen years old at the
time of the hearing. Her brother was 14 and her sister was 17. R. 45.
D.L. testified that in a typical day she got up at 7:00 a.m., got dressed
and rode the bus to school. D.L. testified that she did not need any
reminders or help getting ready for school. R. 45. D.L. testified that she
walked to the bus stop with her brother. R. 46
D.L. testified that she took Adderall four times a day. She took it
once before she left for school, twice at school, and once after school at
Page 19 of 41

home at 4:00 p.m. R. 45-46. D.L. testified that she took Adderall to help
her concentrate. She testified that the medicine helped her concentrate
sometimes. She testified that the Adderall did not help her concentrate
approximately two out of seven days a week, usually Monday and Sunday.
R. 46-47. D.L. testified on those days she had problems listening and
being tired. R. 47.
D.L. testified that she attended a special education class called
Strategies. D.L. testified that the Strategies class “helps you like make up
your work like when you’re having trouble turning it in and stuff.” R. 48.
She attended Strategies class every day at school. She testified that she
did her homework for other classes in Strategies. She received help with
her homework in the Strategies class if she asked for it. D.L. testified that
she was in Strategies because she had trouble the year before turning in
her homework. She did the work, but did not turn it in. R. 48. She testified
that she did not take work home now because she completed the work in
the Strategies class. R. 48.
D.L. testified that she had problems concentrating in class. She had
problems “Not following directions and talking to my friends.” R. 49. She
testified that her friends kept her from concentrating. She testified that she
remembered what the teacher told her most of the time. R. 49.
Page 20 of 41

D.L. testified that she did not have any problems taking her medicine.
She testified that the medicine made her tired. R. 50.
D.L. testified that she did not have any problems getting along with
her friends at school. She testified that she had problems getting along
with her siblings at home. She testified that her siblings got on her nerves.
She testified that she had arguments with them. She testified, “We yell and
scream at each other.” R. 51.
D.L. testified that she sometimes had problems with adults. She had
problems, “Doing my chores the most.” She testified that the problems
arose because of her “Not wanting to do them.” She testified that she had
to go to her room or she got grounded when she refused to do her chores.
She testified that she had arguments with her parents about issues such as
chores sometimes, but not very often. R. 51.
D.L. testified that she did not have problems with her teachers at
school. She testified that she did not have problems being disciplined at
school. R. 52.
D.L. testified that twice a month she had bad days when she did not
want to do anything. On those days she either sat in her room, or if she
had school, she sat doing her work. D.L. testified that she had problems
with anger when she did not understand her school work or when people
Page 21 of 41

got on her nerves. She testified that her moods sometimes changed
quickly from happy to sad or bad. She testified that this quick change in
mood occurred about twice a month. R. 52-53.
D.L. testified that she took Hydroxyzine to help her sleep. She
testified that she took the medicine about 8:00 p.m. before she went to bed.
She testified that an hour usually passed before she fell asleep. She
testified that she usually woke up about 2:00 a.m. and would be awake for
an hour or two before she fell back asleep. She testified that she had
problems being tired during the day. R. 53-54.
D.L. testified that she saw Dr. Goldman about once a month. D.L.
testified that she saw two different counselors, each counselor once a
week. D.L. testified that she and the counselor worked on D.L.’s attitude
and behavior, particularly D.L.’s behavior at home. R. 55-56.
D.L. testified that about once a month she had problems being
around other people. D.L. testified that she had problems if the other
people made noise or were annoying. R. 56-57.
D.L. testified that she took her Adderall during the summer as well as
during the school year. The school nurse gave her the dose that she took
during the school day. She took the medications on her own at home
during the summer. R. 58.
Page 22 of 41

D.L. testified that she has been often grounded during the summer.
When she was not grounded, she spent time with her friend who lived
down the street. She went to sleepovers at her friend’s house. She took
her medicines at her friend’s house on those occasions. R. 58-59.
Burke then testified.6 Burke testified that D.L. had been diagnosed
with ADHD, ODD, posttraumatic stress disorder, and possible bipolar.
R. 60. Burke testified that D.L. took Adderall three times a day at 8:00
a.m., 12:00 p.m., and 4:00 p.m. She testified that “once in a blue moon”
D.L. threw a fit about taking her medications. She testified that D.L.
received a couple of lunch detentions at school for not going to see the
nurse to take her medications. Burke testified that she supervised D.L.
when D.L. was taking medications at home. R. 60-61.
Burke testified that D.L.’s medications were effective beginning about
fifteen to thirty minutes after D.L. took a dose until about thirty minutes
before the next dose. She testified that “you can see that’s it worn off and
she’s bouncing and defiant again.” R. 61. Burke testified that the school
officials noticed the same pattern. R. 61-62.

6

The witness testified that her first name was Maureen. R. 60. Other documents in the record state that
her first name was “Lorie,” “Lorrie,” or “Laurie.” Burke’s last name changed to Burke sometime after
September 20, 2013. See R. 7. She apparently took the last name of D.L.’s father. The name on the
Complaint (d/e 1) is Lorrie Burke.

Page 23 of 41

Burke testified that D.L. was going into the eighth grade in the fall.
She testified that D.L. received special education in the form of the
Strategies class and extra help reading. D.L. also received extra help if
she did not understand a test, “[T]hey would read them to her and kind of
walk her through it . . . .” R. 62. D.L. had an IEP since kindergarten.
R. 63. Burke testified that school officials were waiting for some test results
before revising D.L.’s IEP for the coming school year. R. 62.
Burke testified that about twice a week D.L. had trouble getting out of
bed to go to school. Once she got up, D.L. was able to get herself ready to
go to school. Burke testified that in the past D.L. walked to the bus stop
with her brother. In the coming school year, D.L. would be walking alone to
the bus stop because her brother would be in high school. Burke testified
that she had no concerns about D.L. getting to school. R. 63.
Burke testified that D.L.’s seventh grade teachers had concern with
D.L. concentrating and handing in homework on time. Burke testified that
the accommodations D.L. has received have helped, but D.L. still had
problems completing work if she did not complete the work in the
Strategies class. Burke testified that in those instances, D.L. did not bring
the work home to complete. R. 63-64.

Page 24 of 41

Burke testified that the last semester D.L. received an A, “a couple” of
Bs, “a couple of” Cs, and an F. D.L. received the F in a class called
Industrial Technologies because D.L. did not turn in a “huge assignment
that was a major part of her grade.” R. 64.
D.L.’s talked to D.L.’s two counselors about D.L.’s behavior at home,
particularly about D.L.’s behavior around her siblings and her “defiance with
doing things.” R. 65.
Burke testified that D.L. could concentrate for an hour if she was
interesting in what she was doing. She testified that D.L. paid attention for
five to ten minutes if she was not interested in what she was doing. Burke
testified that D.L. avoided doing chores such as cleaning her room. Burke
testified that D.L. had problems interrupting her when she was talking to
another adult. D.L.’s medication seemed to help with this behavior. Burke
testified that D.L. did not have problems working with others. Burke
testified she had problems getting D.L. to change behaviors. D.L. would
“go back to doing what she was wanting to do instead of what she was
supposed to do.” R. 66.
Burke testified that D.L. threw a fit about three times a week. She
testified that D.L. usually threw a fit because D.L. did not do what her
parents wanted her to do. D.L. usually would be grounded as a result. The
Page 25 of 41

situation usually lasted an hour, but could last up to a week if the situation
involved chores like cleaning D.L.’s room. Burke testified that D.L.’s fits
were primarily verbal. Burke testified that “once in a blue moon” D.L.
kicked or hit her or D.L.’s siblings during a fit. R. 67. Burke testified that
D.L. sometimes threw objects owned by her sister. R. 68. Burke testified
that DCFS put D.L. on “parental supervised probation for six months for
screaming and cussing and throwing fits at us.” R. 68. Burke testified that
D.L. did not have similar problems at school. R. 67-68.
Burke testified that D.L. could not be left home alone unsupervised.
She testified that D.L. was “starting to become mature enough that maybe
she could be left alone for short periods of time,” while Burke ran brief
errands. R. 68. Burke testified that D.L. could go other places
unsupervised. Burke explained, “I don’t trust any of my kids at home. I
mean it’s just a parent thing, I think.” R. 68-69.
Burke testified that D.L. sometimes changed moods quickly from
being happy to “laying in her bed rolled up in a ball watching TV. Like she’s
upset or depressed or something.” Burke testified that D.L. changed
moods in this way two to three times a week. R. 69. Burke testified that
D.L. had crying spells once or twice a month, usually associated with
getting in trouble.
Page 26 of 41

Burke opined that D.L.’s biggest problem was a lack of concentration
due to ADHD. R. 70. Burke testified that she could not evaluate D.L.’s
intelligence because of the effects of D.L.’s ADHD. R. 70.
The ALJ then concluded the hearing.
THE DECISION OF THE ALJ
The ALJ issued her decision on July 25, 2013. R. 21-36. The ALJ
followed a three-step sequential evaluation process set forth in the
regulations to determine whether a minor is disabled (Analysis). Step 1 of
the Analysis requires the ALJ to determine whether the minor is engaged in
substantial gainful activity. If not, the Analysis continues to Step 2. At Step
2, the ALJ determines whether the minor has a medically determinable
impairment or combination of impairments that are severe. At Step 2, an
impairment or combination of impairments is severe if the impairment or
impairments causes more than minimal functional limitations. If the minor
has severe impairments, the Analysis proceeds to Step 3. At Step 3, the
ALJ determines whether the minor’s impairment or combination of
impairments medically or functionally meet or equal a listing of impairments
in the regulations at 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (Listings).
Medical equivalence is determined by reference to the degree of medical
severity set forth in the Listings.
Page 27 of 41

Functional equivalence is determined by assessing the minor’s
functioning in the six Domains: (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 Herself; and (6)
Health and Physical Well-Being. To be functionally equal to the Listing, the
minor must have marked limitations in two of the six domains or an extreme
limitation in one of the domains. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(b) and (d).
The ALJ explained the meaning of “marked” and “extreme”
limitations under the applicable regulations:
Social Security regulation 20 CPR 416.926a(e)(2) explains that
a child has a "marked limitation" in a domain when her
impairment(s) "interferes seriously" with the ability to
independently initiate, sustain, or complete activities. A child's
day-to-day functioning may be seriously limited when the
impairment(s) limits only one activity or when the interactive
and cumulative effects of the impairment(s) limit several
activities. The regulations also explain that a "marked" limitation
also means:
1. A limitation that is "more than moderate" but "less than
extreme."
2. The equivalent of functioning that would be expected
on standardized testing with scores that are at least two,
but less than three, standard deviations below the mean.
3. A valid score that is two standard deviations or more
below the mean, but less than three standard deviations,
on a comprehensive standardized test designed to
measure ability or functioning in that domain, and her
Page 28 of 41

day-to-day functioning in domain-related activities is
consistent with that score.
4. For the domain of health and physical well-being,
frequent episodes of illnesses because of the
impairment(s) or frequent exacerbations of the
impairment(s) that result in significant, documented
symptoms or signs that occur: (a) on an average of 3
times a year, or once every 4 months, each lasting 2
weeks or more; (b) more often than 3 times in a year or
once every 4 months, but not lasting for 2 weeks; or (c)
less often than an average of 3 times a year or once
every 4 months but lasting longer than 2 weeks, if the
overall effect (based on the length of the episode(s) or its
frequency) is equivalent in severity.
Social Security regulation 20 CPR 416.926a(e)(3) explains that
a child has an "extreme" limitation in a domain when her
impairment(s) interferes "very seriously" with her ability to
independently initiate, sustain, or complete activities. A child's
day-to-day functioning may be very seriously limited when her
impairment(s) limits only one activity or when the interactive
and cumulative effects of her impairments(s) limit several
activities. The regulations also explain that an "extreme"
limitation also means:
1. A limitation that is "more than marked."
2. The equivalent of functioning that would be expected
on standardized testing with scores that are at least three
standard deviations below the mean.
3. A valid score that is three standard deviations or more
below the mean on a comprehensive standardized test
designed to measure ability or functioning in that domain,
and her day-to-day functioning in domain-related activities
is consistent with that score.
4. For the domain of health and physical well-being,
episodes of illness or exacerbations that result in
Page 29 of 41

significant, documented symptoms or signs substantially
in excess of the requirements for showing a "marked"
limitation.
R. 23-24. The claimant has the burden of proof on all three Steps of the
Analysis. See Filus v. Astrue, 694 F.3d 863, 868 (7th Cir. 2012).
The ALJ determined that Burke met her burden of proof at Steps 1
and 2 of the Analysis. D.L. was not engaged in substantial gainful activity
and D.L. suffered from the severe impairments of ADHD, combined type;
ODD; and depressive disorder. R. 24.
At Step 3, the ALJ first found that D.L.’s impairments or combination
of impairments did not medically meet or equal any Listing. The ALJ
considered the Listings under § 112.00 et seq for Mental Disorders—
Childhood. R. 24.
The ALJ then found that D.L.’s impairments or combination of
impairments did not functionally meet or equal any Listing. R. 24-36. The
ALJ addressed each of the Six Domains. The ALJ found that D.L. had
marked limitations in the Domain of Attending and Completing Tasks, and
less than marked limitations in all of the other Domains.
The ALJ found that D.L. had less than marked limitations in the
domain of Acquiring and Using Information. The ALJ relied on D.L.’s 2009
scores on the WISC IV and WIAT II that were in normal ranges; on Dr.
Page 30 of 41

Altomari’s opinion that these test scores indicated that D.L. was learning
normally; and Dr. Goldman’s opinion that D.L. was moderately limited in
this domain. R. 26, 29. The ALJ also relied on D.L.’s improving grades in
January 2013 when the Plaintiff reported she brought two “F”s up to “B”s
and her mother reported “We’re good”, and on the notes from the February
16, 2012 meeting with Dr. Goldman which stated that D.L. was doing
better. The ALJ also relied on Dr. Goldman’s note on January 30, 2012,
that Risperdal made D.L. calmer, and on counselor Underhill’s note on
September 13, 2012, that D.L. followed detailed instructions and
maintained attentive behavior in making a Calming Jar. R. 29-30.
The ALJ found that D.L. had marked limitations in the domain of
Attending and Completing Tasks. The ALJ relied on evidence that D.L. had
trouble completing and turning in homework, including Sanders’ responses
in the Teacher Questionnaire that D.L. had very serious problems in some
subcategories of this domain.7 The ALJ stated that she selected “marked”
because D.L. still attends regular classes at school and D.L. was able to
complete small tasks for herself, such as using a microwave and making
small meals. R. 31. The ALJ also relied on Dr. Hill’s GAF score of 53

7

The ALJ erroneously referred to Sanders as Emily Price. Price apparently completed and signed a twopage Request for Administrative Information form. R. 204-05. Sanders’ Teacher Questionnaire
accompanied the Request for Administrative Information. R. 206-15. The ALJ erroneously concluded that
Price completed the Teacher Questionnaire.

Page 31 of 41

(indicating moderate symptoms) to the extent that the score represents
overall functioning. R. 26.
The ALJ found that D.L. had no limitations in the domain of
Interacting and Relating with Others. The ALJ relied on portions of the
October 22, 2012, IEP that indicated D.L. behaved well at school, could
communicate effectively, and did not exhibit behaviors that impeded her
learning or that of others; and Sanders’ opinion that D.L. had no problems
observed in this Domain. The ALJ also relied on Burke’s report that D.L.
wanted to stay overnight with friends and was making better choices. The
ALJ also relied on counseling notes on April 18 and 19, 2012, that D.L. was
receiving complements from her mother and sister for making good choices
to work hard and clean the house, and that D.L. was “doing fine” with her
siblings.

R. 27, 32.

The ALJ found that D.L. had less than marked limitations in the
domain of Caring for Herself. R. 34-35. The ALJ noted that D.L. had
problems taking care of herself and keeping herself from harm. The ALJ
found that the limitations in this domain were less than marked because
D.L.’s mental status examinations were normal and in particular the 2013
Annual Assessment mental status examination noted that her behavior was
cooperative; and because D.L.’s medications alleviated symptoms that
Page 32 of 41

affected this domain. R. 34-35. The ALJ also relied on counseling notes
from Clayton and Underhill that D.L. appeared clean and well-groomed,
and on Dr. Altomari’s opinion that D.L. had problems with coping, hygiene
and asking for help, but the limitations were less than marked. R. 26, 34.
The ALJ also relied on Sanders’ opinion that D.L. had a very serious
problem in only one of the ten subsections of this Domain set forth in the
Teacher Questionnaire. R. 27.
The ALJ found no limitations in the other domains of Moving About
and Manipulating Objects and Health and Physical Well-Being. R. 32-35.
The ALJ discounted Dr. Goldman’s opinion that D.L. had extreme
limitations in Attending and Completing Tasks; marked or extreme
limitations in Interacting and Relating with Others; marked limitations in
Caring for Herself; and extreme limitations in Health and Physical WellBeing. The ALJ found these opinions were inconsistent with the other
evidence in the record and inconsistent with his own treatment notes. The
ALJ cited treatment notes in which Burke reported that D.L. was doing well
in school and that her Risperdal made her calmer. The ALJ also relied on
Dr. Goldman’s consistent normal findings in D.L.’s mental status
examinations and his repeated findings “that aggression, suicide risks,
psychosis, and risk to others was ‘absent.’” The ALJ concluded, “Dr.
Page 33 of 41

Goldman’s treatment records, which document progress and do not
document any ‘extreme’ functional impairments, are inconsistent with his
opinions . . . . Accordingly, I give his overall opinion partial weight.” R. 27.
The ALJ discounted the significance of the GAF scores. The ALJ
stated that represented “a clinician’s judgment as to the individual’s overall
level of functioning or the severity of the individual’s symptoms as of the
day and the hour the assessment is made.” R. 27. As a result, a GAF
score may relate only to the severity of symptoms rather than the severity
of functional limitations. The ALJ stated, “[T]he GAF score may have little
or no bearing on an individual’s social or occupational functioning.” R. 28.
The ALJ also stated that a GAF score was highly subjective and limited to a
specific point in time. The ALJ gave the GAF scores in D.L.’s records little
weight because the evidence showed improvement over time and because
her mental status examinations were within normal limits. R. 28.8
The ALJ concluded that D.L. did not functionally meet or equal a
Listing because she was not extremely limited in any domain and was not

8

The Court notes that the American Psychiatric Association no longer recommends using GAF scores.
American Psychiatric Association, DSM-5, at 16 (“It was recommended that the GAF score be dropped
from DSM-5 for several reasons, including its conceptual lack of clarity (i.e., including symptoms, suicide
risk, and disabilities in its descriptors) and questionable psychometrics in routine practice.”). See Denton
v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 419, 425 (7th Cir. 2010) (GAF rating “does not reflect the clinician’s opinion of
functional capacity” because the rating measures the worst of symptoms or functional level, not just
functional capacity.). But see Price v. Colvin, 794 F.3d 836, 839-40 (7th Cir. 2015) (ALJ cannot ignore a
low GAF score). The ALJ here did not ignore D.L.’s GAF scores.

Page 34 of 41

markedly limited in two domains. The ALJ, therefore, concluded that D.L.
was not disabled. R. 36.
Burke appealed the ALJ’s decision on behalf of D.L. On September
23, 2014, the Appeals Council denied the request for review. The decision
of the ALJ then became the final decision of the Defendant Commissioner.
R. 1. Burke then brought this action for judicial review.
ANALYSIS
This Court reviews the Decision of the Commissioner to determine
whether it is supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is
“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate”
to support the decision. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971).
This Court must accept the findings if they are supported by substantial
evidence, and may not substitute its judgment. Delgado v. Bowen, 782
F.2d 79, 82 (7th Cir. 1986). This Court will not review the credibility
determinations of the ALJ unless the determinations lack any explanation
or support in the record. Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 413-14 (7th Cir.
2008). The ALJ must articulate at least minimally her analysis of all
relevant evidence. Herron v. Shalala, 19 F.3d 329, 333 (7th Cir. 1994).
The ALJ must “build an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to his
conclusion.” Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 872 (7th Cir. 2000).
Page 35 of 41

The ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. D.L.’s
impairments do not medically meet or equal a Listing. D.L. and Burke do
not dispute this finding.
The ALJ’s decision that her impairments or combination of
impairments do not functionally equal a Listing is supported by substantial
evidence. The finding that D.L. is less than markedly limited in the Domain
of Acquiring and Using Information is supported by the opinions of Drs.
Goldman and Altomari, by D.L.’s normal test scores, by the treatment and
counseling notes cited by the ALJ, and by D.L.’s improving grades. The
finding that D.L. is markedly limited in the Domain of Attending and
Completing Tasks is supported by Sanders’ Teacher Questionnaire and by
the fact that D.L. is attending regular classes at school except for the
Strategies class. These two factors support the ALJ’s decision to find
D.L.’s limitations in the Domain was marked rather than extreme.
The ALJ’s findings that D.L. had no limitations in the Domains of
Moving About and Manipulating Objects and Health and Well-Being are
supported by substantial evidence. Burke does not challenge these
findings on appeal.
The finding that D.L. had no limitations in the Domain of Interacting
and Relating with Others is supported by the October 22, 2012 IEP that
Page 36 of 41

indicated D.L. behaved well at school, could communicate effectively, and
did not exhibit behaviors that impeded her learning or that of others; and by
Sanders’ opinion in her Teacher Questionnaire that D.L. did not have
problems in this Domain. The ALJ’s findings were also supported by
evidence that she had friends among her peers, and the evidence cited by
the ALJ that she could get along with her siblings.
D.L., however, clearly had repeated problems interacting with her
siblings, and some problems interacting with her parents. This contrary
evidence indicates that the ALJ should have found some level of limitation
in this Domain. The ALJ’s error, if any, was harmless because the overall
evidence supports a finding that D.L.’s limitations in this Domain were less
than marked. A marked limitation must seriously interfere with the child’s
ability to initiate, sustain, or complete relevant activities. 20 C.F.R. §
416.926a(3)(2). The 2012 IEP, Sanders’ Teacher Questionnaire, and
D.L.’s ability to relate to her peers supports the ALJ’s conclusion that D.L.’s
impairments did not seriously interfere with her ability to interact and relate
with others outside her family. She only had problems with her siblings
and, to a lesser extent, with Burke. The evidence on which the ALJ relied
supports the conclusion that D.L.’s limitations in this Domain were less than
marked.
Page 37 of 41

The ALJ’s finding that D.L. was not markedly limited in the Domain of
Caring for Herself was supported by the findings in the 2013 Annual
Assessment mental status examination that D.L.’s behavior was
cooperative; by the evidence that D.L.’s medications were effective; by
Sanders’ opinion that D.L. had no problem in five of the ten subcategories
of this Domain on the Teacher Questionnaire, and a very serious problem
in only one subcategory; and by the counseling notes that showed D.L.
appeared clean and well-groomed. This evidence supported the ALJ’s
conclusion that D.L. had some limitations in the Domain, but those
limitations were less than marked.
The ALJ’s findings that D.L. was not extremely limited in any domain,
and was markedly limited in only one domain, supports her conclusion at
Step 3 that D.L. was not disabled. The ALJ’s decision was supported by
substantial evidence.
Burke argues that the ALJ erred in not giving controlling weight to the
opinions of D.L.’s treating psychiatrist Dr. Goldman. A treating physician’s
opinion are to be given controlling weight if they are well-supported by
medically accepted clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and are
not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.
20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2).
Page 38 of 41

The ALJ did not give controlling weight to Dr. Goldman’s opinion
because the ALJ found that his opinions were inconsistent with other
evidence in the record and inconsistent with his own treatment notes.
Substantial evidence supports that conclusion. Burke concedes that
Dr. Goldman’s opinion that D.L. was extremely limited in the Domain of
Health and Well-Being was contrary to other substantial evidence in the
record. Dr. Goldman’s opinion that D.L. was extremely limited in the
Domain of Attending and Completing Tasks was contradicted evidence in
the record including Dr. Goldman’s treatment notes that showed the ability
to improve grades periodically; D.L.’s testimony that she was able to
complete all of her assignments for her regular classes in the Strategies
class; and by treatment notes and testimony that D.L.’s medications were
effective in controlling her ADHD.
Dr. Goldman’s opinion that D.L. is markedly impaired in the Domain
of Caring for Herself was contradicted by evidence that she took care of her
personal hygiene and grooming and by the finding in the 2013 Annual
Assessment mental status examination that D.L.’s behavior was
cooperative.
Contrary to the design of the Functional Capacity Assessment form,
Dr. Goldman gave three discrete opinions regarding the Domain of
Page 39 of 41

Interacting and Relating with Others and did not directly opine whether D.L.
was overall markedly limited in this Domain. Furthermore, Dr. Goldman’s
opinion regarding interacting with adults was contradicted by the finding in
the 2013 Annual Assessment mental status examination that D.L.’s
behavior was cooperative in school and by Sanders’ opinion that D.L. had
no observable problems in this Domain. Under these circumstances, the
Court sees no error in the ALJ’s decision to discount the weight to be given
to his opinions in this Domain.
Burke argues that other evidence in the record supports some of
Dr. Goldman’s opinions. The evidence cited may be consistent with
Dr. Goldman’s opinions. Dr. Goldman’s opinions are still inconsistent with
the substantial evidence in the record relied on by the ALJ. The ALJ,
therefore, did not err in deciding not to give controlling weight to
Dr. Goldman’s opinions. The reasons given by the ALJ for not giving
controlling weight to Dr. Goldman’s opinions are adequate and are
supported by substantial evidence. Here the ALJ provided a sufficiently
sound explanation for her rejection of Dr. Goldman’s opinions. See
Schreiber v. Colvin, 519 Fed.Appx. 951, 959 (7th Cir. 2013).
Burke argues that the ALJ erred in not finding marked limitations in
the Domains of Interacting and Relating with Others and Caring for Herself.
Page 40 of 41

The Court disagrees. The Court has carefully reviewed the record and
finds that the evidence cited by the ALJ constitutes substantial evidence
sufficient to support the conclusion that D.L.’s limitations in these Domains
was less than marked. Burke essentially asks this Court to reweigh the
evidence. The Court may not do so. Clifford, 227 F.3d at 869. The Court
only decides whether the decision is supported by “such relevant evidence
as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate.” Richardson, 402 U.S. at
401. In this case, a reasonable mind might accept as adequate the
evidence on which the ALJ relied in deciding that D.L.’s limitations were
less than marked in these Domains. The ALJ’s decision was supported by
substantial evidence.
THEREFORE Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s Motion
for Summary Affirmance (d/e 22) is ALLOWED, and Plaintiff’s Brief in
Support of Complaint (d/e 18) is DENIED. The decision of the
Commissioner is AFFIRMED. THIS CASE IS CLOSED.

ENTER: May 25, 2016

s/ Tom Schanzle-Haskins
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 41 of 41