King v. Colvin

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed, and plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. A separate Judgment in accordance with this Memorandum and Order is entered this same date. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terry I. Adelman on 1/23/2015. (KMS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

VINITA KING, o/b/o W.G.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:14CV116 TIA

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Vinita King brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial
review of the Commissioner’s final decision denying her application for child’s
supplemental security income (SSI) filed on behalf of her minor child under Title
XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381, et seq. All matters are pending
before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge, with consent of the parties,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Because the Commissioner’s final decision is
supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, it is affirmed.
I. Procedural History
On November 30, 2012, following a hearing, an administrative law judge
(ALJ) denied plaintiff’s application for child’s SSI benefits, which plaintiff

protectively filed on May 9, 2011, on behalf of her minor child, W.G. 1 (Tr. 8-24.)
Plaintiff alleged a disability onset date of May 1, 2011. (Tr. 34.) On December 3,
2013, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff’s request for review of the ALJ’s
decision. (Tr. 1-3.) The ALJ’s decision thus stands as the final decision of the
Commissioner. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).2
In this action for judicial review, plaintiff contends that W.G.’s cognitive
impairments functionally equal a listed impairment inasmuch as they result in
marked limitations in two broad areas of functioning, namely, Acquiring and Using
Information, and Attending and Completing Tasks. Plaintiff argues that the ALJ’s
finding that W.G. suffered no limitations in the domain of Attending and
Completing Tasks is not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a
whole and requests that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed. For the reasons
that follow, the final decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.
II. Testimonial Evidence Before the ALJ
A hearing was held before an ALJ on October 9, 2012, at which plaintiff
1

In her decision, the ALJ states that the application was protectively filed on May 9, 2011. (Tr.
11.) The application itself, however, does not appear in the administrative record presently
before the Court for review.
2

Plaintiff previously filed an application on behalf of W.G. for child’s SSI benefits, which was
denied by an ALJ on November 17, 2010, after a hearing. Upon the Appeals Council’s denial of
plaintiff’s request for review of this adverse decision, plaintiff sought judicial review of the
Commissioner’s final decision. On March 1, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Shirley
Padmore-Mensah affirmed the final decision. See generally King v. Astrue, Cause No.
4:11CV1923 SPM (E.D. Mo. 2013).
-2-

testified in response to questions posed by the ALJ and counsel. (Tr. 28-43.)
Plaintiff is W.G.’s mother. (Tr. 31.) At the time of the hearing, W.G. was in
the fifth grade. He previously had been retained in school for one year to repeat
either kindergarten or first grade. (Tr. 35.)
Plaintiff testified that W.G. is currently enrolled in special education classes
and has problems with reading, becomes confused, and has difficulty
understanding things. Plaintiff testified that W.G. cannot explain to her what he is
learning in school. Plaintiff testified that W.G.’s grades are “okay but not too
good,” and not as good as they should be for his age and level. (Tr. 35-36.)
Plaintiff testified that W.G. has an IEP at school and is in the regular
classroom as well as a resource room where he receives one-on-one instruction.
Plaintiff testified that W.G. also seeks assistance from an additional teacher who is
present in the regular classroom. Plaintiff testified to her belief that W.G. also
receives help from peer tutors in the classroom. As part of his IEP, W.G. is given
extra time to complete tests and exams. Plaintiff believes that W.G.’s most recent
IEP placed his performance at the second grade level. (Tr. 38-39.)
Plaintiff testified that W.G. gets along with his teachers and has a few
friends at school. Plaintiff testified that W.G.’s friends “bully” him and pick on
him because he is not at their level in class. (Tr. 36.) Plaintiff testified that W.G.
gets nervous every day and “shuts down.” Plaintiff testified that W.G. talks to his
-3-

teachers when he is having such problems. W.G. has not visited a private
counselor outside of school. (Tr. 39-40.)
Plaintiff testified that W.G. takes medication for allergies and headaches and
experiences no side effects therefrom. W.G. takes no other medications. (Tr. 41.)
Plaintiff testified that W.G. takes out the trash at home as a chore, but she
must repeatedly remind him to do so. Plaintiff testified that W.G. is able to care
for his personal needs and grooming, but she reminds him to do these things as
well. Plaintiff testified that W.G. likes to bowl and sometimes plays video games.
He does not participate in any after-school sporting activities or any other type of
youth activities. Plaintiff testified that W.G. does not go to any friends’ houses nor
has any friends come to his house. W.G. does not go outside and usually stays in
the house to watch television or do homework. Plaintiff testified that W.G. is
always with her. (Tr. 37-38, 41-42.) Plaintiff testified that W.G. gets along with
her and his twenty-year-old sister. (Tr. 36-37.)
III. Medical and School Records
W.G. was seen at People’s Health Centers on June 30, 2010, for complaints
related to an upper respiratory infection. (Tr. 295-97.)
In September 2010, W.G. took the Otis-Lemon School Ability Test
(OLSAT) on which he scored below average in the verbal and non-verbal clusters.
W.G. was nine years old and in the third grade. (Tr. 192.)
-4-

Social/behavioral observations at school in November 2010 showed W.G.
unable to make it through the day without “shutting down,” which involved
becoming tearful, hiding under a table, and refusing to comply with directives or
getting started on work. W.G. was noted to struggle on a daily basis to show effort
and begin tasks. W.G. was observed to stand up and shout “I’m frustrated” when
frustrated with an assignment, and he would be sent to an alternative location to
complete his work. (Tr. 270.)
Upon evaluation in February and March 2011, the Special School District
determined that W.G. was eligible for IEP services, including 600 minutes of
special education in the areas of reading and written expression. It was noted that
W.G. had been diagnosed with a learning disability in the areas of reading fluency,
basic reading, reading comprehension, and written expression. Intervention
strategies and services that had been provided prior to being diagnosed were not
effective. (Tr. 194.) It was noted that W.G. obtained the following IQ scores in
January 2011: nonverbal-92, verbal-78, and full scale-84, and was observed
during this testing to attend to tasks and materials appropriately for his
chronological age, and to demonstrate adequate endurance and require little to no
encouragement to complete all tasks presented. W.G. was reading at the first grade
level. (Tr. 244, 250.) Teachers reported W.G. to have at-risk to significant
concerns in the areas of depression, study skills, anxiety, attention problems,
-5-

atypicality, withdrawal, adapting readily to changes in the environment, and
working well with others to accomplish a goal. (Tr. 251.) It was determined that
W.G. needed specialized instruction in a step-by-step manner in reading and
writing with frequent review, drill, and instruction taught at his current functioning
level. It was noted that W.G. currently had difficulty following written directions,
struggled with writing processes and expressing complex ideas, was easily
frustrated by third grade expectations, was frustrated by not being able to keep up
with his peers in the classroom, was easily discouraged by tasks that are difficult or
perceived to be difficult, and was afraid to take risks in his learning. It was noted
that W.G. would benefit from repeated review and drill; specialized instruction
in the area of decoding; hands-on materials; visuals; rephrasing of directions;
instructions that are systemic and explicit in the areas of basic reading, reading
comprehension, and written expression; step-by-step process; immediate feedback;
personal connections with staff; positive feedback; encouragement from all staff;
common language from staff with respect to expectations; modeling of
expectations; choice of tasks to prevent shutting down; reading tests; dictation to
a scribe; extended time; adapted tests with multiple-choice format, if possible;
chunking material; breaks when tasks are too difficult; variance of activities;
break cards for frustration level; alternative setting for tests and instruction in
reading, writing, and math. It was noted that all of W.G.’s grades were currently
-6-

modified and were based on first grade levels. W.G. was noted to be working two
grade levels below his same aged peers. It was determined that W.G. would be
placed in the regular classroom forty to seventy-nine percent of the time. Testing
accommodations included oral reading of assessments in math as well as extended
time, use of a scribe, and testing individually in all subjects. General
accommodations were likewise provided for classroom instruction, including
adapted text in language arts and reading, preferential seating, study guides,
alternative settings for tests, shorter assignments with lower difficulty, extended
time for completion of assignments, frequent breaks, and multiple choice formats
for tests. It was also determined that W.G. would participate in summer session
services given his display of significant regression and his functioning at several
years below his same aged peers. (Tr. 217-36.)
W.G.’s end-of-year progress report for the third grade, dated May 2011,
showed W.G. to have earned the following marks in Citizenship: “Emerging” in
the areas of observing classroom and school rules, accepting responsibility, and
practicing self-control; and “Satisfactory” in the areas of being courteous and
respectful to others, and working cooperatively with others. In Work and Study
Habits, W.G. earned the mark of Emerging in the areas of listening attentively,
following directions, using time wisely, contributing to classroom discussions,
working well independently, and demonstrating effort. He earned a Satisfactory
-7-

mark in the areas of completing assignments on time, completing assignments
neatly, keeping materials organized, and developing computer skills. W.G. earned
an “Outstanding” mark in the area of writing legibly. In Communication Arts,
W.G. earned the mark of Emerging in the area of listening attentively for learning,
enjoyment, and exchange of information; and Satisfactory in the area of using oral
language to gather information from, respond to, and inform others. W.G. earned a
modified grade of B in Reading and Writing, with marks of Emerging or
Satisfactory in all curriculum-specific areas such as using multiple strategies to
gain meaning, making meaningful connections, using reference materials, and
collecting ideas and plans for writing projects. W.G. was noted to read at the first
grade level and to write three sentences to describe a story’s beginning, middle,
and end. W.G. earned a modified grade of C in Math, with marks of Emerging or
Satisfactory in all curriculum-specific areas such as communicating mathematical
thinking effectively and using effective strategies to solve problems. It was noted
that W.G. continued to work on math facts up to 20 in addition and subtraction.
He was instructed to work on telling time, counting money, and adding and
subtracting two digit numbers during the summer. W.G. earned a B in Science and
a modified grade of C in Social Studies. W.G. earned marks of Emerging or
Satisfactory in Visual Arts, and Satisfactory in General Music and Physical
Education. In no area of this progress report did W.G. receive the mark of “Needs
-8-

Improvement.” (Tr. 183-87.)
W.G. was seen at People’s Health Centers on May 16, 2011, for complaints
related to an upper respiratory infection. (Tr. 298-300.)
In July 2011, Dr. Despine Coulis, a medical consultant with disability
determinations, and Marshal Toll, Psy.D., a psychological consultant with
disability determinations, completed a Childhood Disability Evaluation Form in
which they opined that W.G.’s learning disability did not meet, medically equal, or
functionally equal a listed impairment. Specifically, the consultants found that
W.G. experienced marked limitations in the domain of Acquiring and Using
Information; less than marked limitations in the domains of Attending and
Completing Tasks, Interacting and Relating with Others, and Moving About and
Manipulating Objects; and no limitations in the domains of Caring for Yourself,
and Health and Physical Well-Being. (Tr. 309-15.)
W.G. was seen at People’s Health Centers on September 16, 2011, for a
yearly physical examination and for complaints related to allergic rhinitis. W.G.’s
general social history was noted to include reports that W.G. cooperated with
family, friends, and teachers. W.G. was noted to have enough friends. It was
noted that W.G. earned good grades at school and was performing at the second
grade level. W.G. was observed to behave appropriately for his age. (Tr. 319-23.)
An IEP Progress Report dated November 2011 showed W.G. to be writing at
-9-

the second grade level and to be progressing nicely with reading and spelling. (Tr.
237.)
W.G. underwent IEP review in February 2012. He was in the fourth grade.
W.G.’s difficulties noted in the February/March 2011 IEP remained the same, as
well as opined benefits from various learning and teaching strategies. W.G.’s math
teacher noted that W.G. used strategies that helped him complete math problems.
It was noted that while W.G. struggled to begin each new problem, he benefited
from reminders to use his strategies. It was noted that previous testing through the
Special School District placed W.G.’s cognitive ability in the below average range.
W.G. scored in the “below basic” range on the MAP tests in mathematics and
communication arts. W.G.’s goals were noted to be to deal with his frustration,
have a positive attitude, and challenge himself to attempt to read at a higher level.
W.G.’s reading goal was to increase his basic reading and comprehension skills to
a second or third grade level. It was determined that W.G. would receive 315
minutes of special education services in reading and 315 minutes of special
education services in written expression each week. W.G. would also receive
thirty minutes of social work services each week. It was determined that W.G.
would be placed in the regular classroom at least eighty percent of the time.
Testing accommodations would be provided in communication arts and math,
including oral reading of the assessments, extended time, taking breaks, and testing
- 10 -

with small groups. General accommodations were likewise provided for classroom
instruction, including adapted text in language and reading, preferential seating,
alternative settings for tests, shorter assignments with lower difficulty, extended
time for completion of assignments, and multiple choice formats for tests. (Tr.
196-213.)
W.G.’s end-of-year progress report for the fourth grade, dated May 2012,
showed W.G. to have earned a mark of Satisfactory in all subset areas of
Citizenship and Communication Arts. In Work and Study Habits, W.G. earned the
marks of Emerging in the area of using time wisely; Satisfactory in the areas of
listening attentively, following directions, completing assignments on time,
contributing to class discussions, working well independently, demonstrating
knowledge of computer skills, and demonstrating effort; and Outstanding in the
areas of completing assignments neatly, keeping materials organized, and writing
legibly. W.G. earned an A in Reading and a B in Writing, with marks of Emerging
or Satisfactory in all curriculum-specific areas. W.G. was noted to read at the
second grade level, and he was working more independently with his editing and
revising of written pieces. W.G. earned a modified grade of B in Math, with marks
of Emerging or Satisfactory in the curriculum-specific areas of understanding
concepts of computation, patterns, and geometry; Satisfactory in the area of
communicating mathematical thinking effectively; and Outstanding in the area of
- 11 -

using effective strategies to solve problems. It was noted that W.G. was becoming
more consistent in his “ability to tackle new problems and use his strategies to
solve them.” W.G. earned marks of Satisfactory in Visual Arts, General Music,
and Physical Education, with notations by teachers showing W.G. to be confident
and to participate in class. W.G. was also observed to be an organized student and
to work hard. (Tr. 178-82.)
W.G. participated in summer school through the Special School District in
May and June 2012. It was noted that W.G. was reading at the beginning second
grade level and “did a nice job” on reading and writing assignments. (Tr. 214.)
W.G. returned to People’s Health Centers on August 20, 2012, for his yearly
physical examination. W.G.’s general social history was noted to include reports
that W.G. cooperated with family, friends, and teachers and that he had enough
friends. There were no reported concerns regarding W.G.’s relationships. It was
noted that W.G. was in the fifth grade, earned good grades, and performed at grade
level. W.G. was observed to behave appropriately for his age. (Tr. 324-29.)
IV. Discussion
A claimant under the age of eighteen is considered disabled and eligible for
SSI under the Social Security Act if he “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
- 12 -

last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. §
1382c(a)(3)(C)(i).
The Commissioner undergoes a three-step sequential evaluation process
when determining whether a child is entitled to SSI benefits. First, the
Commissioner must determine whether the child is engaged in substantial gainful
activity. If not, the Commissioner must then determine whether the child’s
impairment, or combination of impairments, is severe. Finally, if the child’s
impairment(s) is severe, the Commissioner must determine whether such
impairment(s) meets, medically equals or functionally equals the severity of an
impairment listed in Appendix 1 of Subpart P of Part 404 of the Regulations. 20
C.F.R. § 416.924(a); Garrett ex rel. Moore v. Barnhart, 366 F.3d 643, 647 (8th
Cir. 2004). If the impairment(s) meets or medically equals a Listing, the child is
disabled. Garrett, 366 F.3d at 647. If a child’s impairment does not meet or
medically equal a listed impairment, the Commissioner will assess all functional
limitations caused by the child’s impairment to determine whether the impairment
functionally equals the Listings. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a.
To functionally equal a listed impairment, the child’s condition must result
in an “extreme” limitation of functioning in one broad area of functioning, or
“marked” limitations of functioning in two broad areas of functioning. 20 C.F.R. §
416.926a(a). The domains are “broad areas of functioning intended to capture all
- 13 -

of what a child can or cannot do.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(b)(1). The six domains
used by the Commissioner in making such a determination are: 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. Id. If this analysis shows the
child not to have an impairment which is functionally equal in severity to a listed
impairment, the ALJ must find the child not disabled. Oberts o/b/o Oberts v.
Halter, 134 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1082 (E.D. Mo. 2001).
Here, the ALJ underwent the three-step analysis and found W.G. to be a
school-aged child and not to have engaged in substantial gainful activity since the
application filing date of May 9, 2011. The ALJ found W.G.’s impairments of
learning disability and borderline intellectual functioning to be severe, but that
W.G. did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or
medically equaled the severity of a listed impairment in 20 C.F.R. Part 404,
Subpart P, Appendix 1. Turning to whether W.G.’s impairments functionally
equaled a listed impairment, the ALJ found W.G. to have marked limitations in the
domain of Acquiring and Using Information and to have no limitations in any of
the five remaining domains. Given that W.G. did not have an extreme limitation of
functioning in one broad area of functioning nor marked limitations of functioning
in two broad areas of functioning, the ALJ determined him not to be disabled at
- 14 -

any time since the application date of May 9, 2011. (Tr. 11-24.)
Plaintiff challenges the ALJ’s decision to the extent she found W.G. not to
have marked limitations in the domain of Attending and Completing Tasks.
Plaintiff does not challenge the ALJ’s decision with respect to the other domains.
The Commissioner's findings are conclusive upon this Court if they are
supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Young v. Shalala, 52 F.3d
200 (8th Cir. 1995) (citing Woolf v. Shalala, 3 F.3d 1210, 1213 (8th Cir. 1993)).
Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance but enough that a reasonable
person would find it adequate to support the conclusion. Briggs v. Callahan, 139
F.3d 606, 608 (8th Cir. 1998). In evaluating the substantiality of the evidence, the
Court must consider evidence which supports the Commissioner's decision as well
as any evidence which fairly detracts from the decision. Id. Where substantial
evidence supports the Commissioner's decision, the decision may not be reversed
merely because substantial evidence may support a different outcome. Id.
In determining functional equivalence, a child-claimant has a “marked”
limitation in a domain when his
impairment(s) interferes seriously with [his] ability to independently
initiate, sustain, or complete activities. [His] day-to-day functioning
may be seriously limited when [his] impairment(s) limits only one
activity or when the interactive and cumulative effects of [his]
impairment(s) limit several activities. “Marked” limitation also
means a limitation that is “more than moderate” but “less than
extreme.”
- 15 -

20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(e)(2)(i). A child will be found to have an “extreme”
limitation when the impairment “interferes very seriously with [the child’s] ability
to independently initiate, sustain, or complete activities.” 20 C.F.R. §
416.926a(e)(3). A child’s functional limitations in each domain “must result from
[his] medically determinable impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(b)(2).
In determining whether a child-claimant’s functioning may be marked or
extreme, the Commissioner is to review all the evidence of record and “compare
[the child’s] functioning to the typical functioning of children [the child’s] age who
do not have impairments.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(f)(1); see also 20 C.F.R. §
416.926a(b) (in determining child-claimant’s functioning, Commissioner looks “at
how appropriately, effectively and independently [the child] perform[s] [his]
activities compared to the performance of other children [the child’s] age who do
not have impairments.”); 20 C.F.R. § 416.924a(b)(5). For children who have spent
time in structured or supportive settings, such as special classrooms or residential
facilities, the Commissioner is to consider whether and to what extent such
structured setting affects the child’s functional limitations and how the child would
function outside of such setting. 20 C.F.R. § 416.924a(b)(5)(iv).
With respect to the domain of Attending and Completing Tasks, the
Commissioner is to consider how well the child-claimant is able to focus and
maintain his attention; and how well he begins, carries through, and finishes his
- 16 -

activities, including the pace at which he performs activities and the ease with
which he changes them. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(h); Hudson ex rel. Jones v.
Barnhart, 345 F.3d 661, 667 (8th Cir. 2003).
Attention involves regulating your levels of alertness and initiating
and maintaining concentration. It involves the ability to filter out
distractions and to remain focused on an activity or task at a consistent
level of performance. This means focusing long enough to initiate
and complete an activity or task, and changing focus once it is
completed. It also means that if you lose or change your focus in the
middle of a task, you are able to return to the task without other
people having to remind you frequently to finish it.
20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(h)(1)(i). The Regulations provide that a school-age child
should be able to
focus [his] attention in a variety of situations in order to follow
directions, remember and organize [his] school materials, and
complete classroom and homework assignments. [He] should be able
to concentrate on details and not make careless mistakes in [his] work
. . . . [He] should be able to change [his] activities or routines without
distracting [himself] or others, and stay on task and in place when
appropriate. [He] should be able to sustain [his] attention well enough
to participate in group sports, read by [himself], and complete family
chores. [He] should also be able to complete a transition task (e.g., be
ready for the school bus, change clothes after gym, change
classrooms) without extra reminders and accommodation.
20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(h)(2)(iv).
In this case, the ALJ found W.G. to have no limitations in the domain of
Attending and Completing Tasks. The ALJ specifically noted W.G.’s mother to
have testified that W.G. takes out the trash and plays video games. The ALJ
further noted that W.G.’s fourth grade progress report showed him to have
- 17 -

achieved the marks of “Satisfactory” or “Emerging” in the following areas: listens
attentively, follows directions, uses time wisely, completes assignments on time,
contributes to class discussions, works well independently, demonstrates
knowledge of computer skills, and demonstrates effort. (Tr. 19.) In addition, as
noted by the ALJ, W.G. achieved an “Outstanding” mark in the areas of writing
legibly, keeping materials organized, and completing assignments neatly. (Id.)
The ALJ observed that these rankings are higher than “Needs Improvement.”
Indeed, throughout W.G.’s fourth grade year, none of his teachers reported that
W.G. needed improvement in any area. The undersigned also notes that W.G. was
observed by his teachers to actively participate in his classes and to be a hard
worker. W.G.’s teachers also reported that W.G. used strategies to initiate and
complete tasks, was an organized student, and worked more independently.
Notably, at the conclusion of fourth grade, W.G. was in a regular classroom eighty
percent of the time. Where school records show a child-claimant able to function
in a normal classroom, to be capable of doing his work, and enjoy an improvement
in his overall condition, nothing more than moderate limitations in the domain of
Attending and Completing tasks are shown. E.g., Pepper ex rel. Gardner v.
Barnhart, 342 F.3d 853, 855-56 (8th Cir. 2003).
To the extent W.G. performed below grade level in reading and writing and
obtained below average scores on standardized assessments, the ALJ properly
- 18 -

considered such circumstances in finding W.G. to have marked limitations in the
domain of Acquiring and Using Information. See Neal ex rel. Walker v. Barnhart,
405 F.3d 685, 690 (8th Cir. 2005). Experiencing marked limitations in this
domain, however, does not ipso facto translate into marked limitations in the
separate domain of Attending and Completing Tasks; especially in the
circumstances here where W.G. was repeatedly observed to be organized, complete
assignments, and work independently. In addition, despite W.G.’s below average
intellectual performance during standardized assessments, he nevertheless was
observed to attend to tasks and materials appropriately during such testing, as well
as demonstrate adequate endurance and require little to no encouragement to
complete all tasks presented. Given these reports by W.G.’s teachers, test
administrators, and school evaluators, it cannot be said that W.G. exhibited
limitations in the domain of Attending and Completing Tasks so significant that
they rise to the level of “marked” limitations under the Regulations. As such, a
review of the record shows there to be substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s
conclusion that W.G. did not experience marked limitations in the domain of
Attending and Completing Tasks.
In her written decision, the ALJ accorded little weight to the State agency
opinion that W.G. had less than marked limitations in this domain, finding that the
evidence of record showed W.G. to instead have no limitations. (Tr. 19.) To the
- 19 -

extent plaintiff challenges the ALJ’s determination to discount this State agency
opinion, the undersigned notes that even if the ALJ had accorded significant
weight to this opinion and found W.G.’s limitations to indeed be “less than
marked” as opined, they nevertheless would not rise to the level of “marked”
limitations such that functional equivalence would be found.
V. Conclusion
A reading of the ALJ’s decision shows the ALJ to have considered all of the
evidence of record and to have based her conclusions on her review of the record
as a whole. The ALJ specifically reviewed and considered the reports and
observations of W.G.’s teachers, school evaluators, and others who often saw W.G.
and could describe his functioning at home and at school. See 20 C.F.R. §
416.926a(b)(3). Upon discussing all the evidence of record, the ALJ determined
W.G.’s impairment not to meet, medically equal, or functionally equal a listed
impairment, and thus found that W.G.’s condition was not disabling under the
Regulations. For the reasons set out above on the claim raised by plaintiff on this
appeal, the ALJ’s determination is supported by substantial evidence on the record
as a whole. Because the Commissioner’s final decision that W.G. is not disabled is
supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, it is affirmed.
Therefore, for all of the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is
- 20 -

affirmed, and plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
A separate Judgment in accordance with this Memorandum and Order is
entered this same date.

Terry I. Adelman
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated this 23rd day of January, 2015.

- 21 -