Clansy v. Colvin
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Gallagher on 10/16/2015. (c/m)(hmls, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/16/2015 (hmls, Deputy Clerk).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHAMBERS OF
STEPHANIE A. GALLAGHER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
101 WEST LOMBARD STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201
(410) 962-7780
Fax (410) 962-1812
October 16, 2015
Ms. Jessica Clansy
11 Nerbay Road
Essex, Maryland 21221
Re: Jessica Clansy o/b/o M.C. v. Commissioner of Social Security,
Civil No. SAG-15-0106
Dear Ms. Clansy:
On January 13, 2015, Jessica Clansy petitioned this Court to review the Social Security
Administration’s denial of her claim for Children’s Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) on
behalf of her minor child, M.C. (ECF No. 1). Ms. Clansy was represented by counsel when her
appeal was filed, but her counsel has since withdrawn his appearance. She now appears pro se.
I have considered the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment.1 (ECF No. 20). This
Court must uphold the Commissioner’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence and if
proper legal standards were employed. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589
(4th Cir. 1996) (superseded by statute on other grounds); Coffman v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 514, 517
(4th Cir. 1987). I find that no hearing is necessary. See Local R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2014). I will
grant the Commissioner’s motion. This letter explains my rationale.
Ms. Clansy applied for Children’s SSI on behalf of M.C. on May 10, 2011. (Tr. 167-75).
Her claim was denied initially and on reconsideration. (Tr. 101-04, 113-14). A hearing was
held on August 22, 2013, before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (Tr. 32-82). Following
the hearing, on August 30, 2013, the ALJ issued an opinion denying benefits. (Tr. 11-31).
Because the Appeals Council denied Ms. Clansy’s request for review, (Tr. 1-4), the ALJ’s
decision is the final, reviewable decision of the Agency.
The ALJ evaluated Ms. Clansy’s claim using the three-step sequential process for claims
involving childhood SSI, as set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 416.924. The ALJ’s findings at steps one
and two favored Ms. Clansy’s claim. At step one, the ALJ found that M.C. had not engaged in
any substantial gainful activity since the application date. (Tr. 17). At step two, the ALJ found
that M.C. suffered from the severe impairments of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD) and disruptive behavior disorder. Id. At step three, however, the ALJ found that M.C.
did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met any listing. Id.
1
After the Commissioner filed her motion, the Clerk’s Office mailed a letter to Ms. Clansy advising her that a
failure to respond to the Commissioner’s motion could result in an adverse decision in her appeal. (ECF No. 21).
Ms. Clansy has not filed any response.
Jessica Clansy v. Commissioner of Social Security
Civil No. SAG-15-106
October 16, 2015
Page 2
Additionally, the ALJ determined that M.C. did not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that would be functionally equivalent to any listing.2 (Tr. 17-26). Therefore, the
ALJ determined that M.C. was not disabled for purposes of Children’s SSI benefits. (Tr. 26).
My review of the ALJ’s decision is confined to whether substantial evidence, in the
record as it was reviewed by the ALJ, supports the decision and whether correct legal standards
were applied. See Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390, 404 (1971). Even if there is other
evidence that may support Ms. Clansy’s position, I am not permitted to reweigh the evidence or
to substitute my own judgment for that of the ALJ. See Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456
(4th Cir. 1990). In considering the entire record, I find that the ALJ’s RFC determination was
supported by substantial evidence.
First, while the ALJ did not expressly evaluate whether M.C.’s symptoms met the listing
for ADHD, an ALJ is required to discuss listed impairments and compare them individually to
listing criteria only when there is “ample evidence in the record to support a determination that
the claimant’s impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments.” Ketcher v. Apfel, 68
F. Supp. 2d 629, 645 (D. Md. 1999). Here, Listing 112.11 (ADHD) requires, in relevant part,
medically documented findings of marked inattention, marked impulsiveness, and marked
hyperactivity. Those findings are not present on the record in this case, and thus no ample
evidence exists to mandate an express discussion of the Listing. Instead, as noted below, the
evidence supports a finding of less than marked limitation in most of the relevant areas.
Second, in evaluating whether M.C.’s impairments equaled a listing, the ALJ extensively
summarized Ms. Clansy’s testimony and her function reports describing M.C.’s abilities and
limitations. (Tr. 18-19). The ALJ further relied upon reports from M.C.’s caseworker
(indicating that he is able to understand and use what he has learned, has no physical limitations,
and some problems with attention and maintaining interest), M.C.’s first grade teacher (who
described M.C. as very successful, a team player, and an enthusiastic learner who was very good
in following class and school rules), a consultative medical examiner, Dr. Fishburne (who noted
that M.C. related well with the examiner, tolerated the approximately hour-long evaluation
without difficulty, and had a GAF score of 85), and M.C.’s therapist, Amanda Boblitz (who
found marked limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace and attending and completing
tasks, but either less than marked or no limitation in other areas). (Tr. 19-21). Ultimately, after
providing a description of the evidence in each area, the ALJ concluded that M.C. had marked
limitations in “attending and completing tasks,” less than marked limitations in “acquiring and
using information,” “interacting and relating with others,” and “health and physical well being,”
and no limitation in “moving about and manipulating objects” or “caring for yourself.” In light
of the substantial evidence cited by the ALJ, particularly the evidence of M.C.’s success in a
2
Functional equivalence is determined by rating a child’s abilities in six “domains”: (i) Acquiring and Using
Information; (ii) Attending and Completing Tasks; (iii) Interacting and Relating Well With Others; (iv) Moving
About and Manipulating Objects; (v) Caring for Yourself; and (vi) Health and Physical Well–Being. Disability is
established if the child has an “extreme” degree of limitation in one domain or a “marked” limitation in two
domains. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a.
Jessica Clansy v. Commissioner of Social Security
Civil No. SAG-15-106
October 16, 2015
Page 3
classroom setting and the evaluation by Dr. Fishburne, remand is unwarranted even if other
evidence exists that could be marshaled in support of a finding of disability.
Thus, for the reasons given, this Court GRANTS the Commissioner’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 20) . The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
Despite the informal nature of this letter, it should be flagged as an opinion.
implementing Order follows.
Sincerely yours,
/s/
Stephanie A. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge
An
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?