Alston v. Colvin

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) Because the Commissioner's final decision that A.E.S. 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 affirmed, and Celestina Alstons complaint is dismissed with prejudice. A separate Judgment is entered herewith. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 2/6/2017. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CELESTINA ALSTON,
as next friend of A.E.S.,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,1
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:15 CV 1461 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Celestina Alston brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) on
behalf of her minor child, A.E.S., seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s
denial of her application for child’s supplemental security income (SSI) under Title
XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381, et seq. Because the
Commissioner’s final decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record
as a whole, I will affirm the decision.
I. Procedural History
Alston filed her application for child’s benefits on April 16, 2013, claiming
that A.E.S. became disabled on August 1, 2010. A.E.S. was six years old when

1

On January 20, 2017, Nancy A. Berryhill became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Berryhill is automatically substituted for former Acting
Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin as defendant in this action.

Alston applied for benefits. The Social Security Administration denied Alston’s
application in June 2013. At Alston’s request, a hearing was held before an
administrative law judge (ALJ) on April 16, 2014, at which Alston and A.E.S.
testified. On May 13, 2014, the ALJ denied Alston’s claim for benefits, finding
A.E.S.’s severe impairments of oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) and attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) not to meet or medically equal a listed
impairment, nor functionally equal a listed impairment. On September 15, 2015,
upon review of additional evidence, the Appeals Council denied Alston’s request
for review of the ALJ’s decision. The ALJ’s decision is thus the final decision of
the Commissioner. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
In this action seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision,
Alston does not claim that the ALJ engaged in any specific error in his
determination that A.E.S. is not disabled. Instead, Alston generally argues that
A.E.S. should be considered disabled.
II. Legal Standard
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
last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. §
-2-

1382c(a)(3)(C)(i).
The Commissioner is required to undergo 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 it 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. 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).
To functionally equal a listed impairment, the child’s condition must result
in an “extreme” limitation in one domain of functioning or “marked” limitations in
-3-

two domains. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(a). The domains are “broad areas of
functioning intended to capture all 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 this
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 WellBeing. Id.
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.”
20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(e)(2)(i). A child has 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). 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
-4-

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).
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, I
must consider evidence which supports the Commissioner's decision as well as any
evidence which fairly detracts from the decision. McNamara v. Astrue, 590 F.3d
607, 610 (8th Cir. 2010). Where substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's
decision, I must affirm, even if a different conclusion may be drawn from the
evidence. Id.
III. Evidence Before the ALJ
A.

Testimonial Evidence
At the hearing on April 16, 2014, Alston and A.E.S. testified in response to

questions posed by the ALJ. A.E.S. was seven years old and in the second grade at
the time of the hearing. He lived with his mother, grandfather, and nine-year-old
brother.
-5-

Alston testified that A.E.S. suffers from ADHD and takes Adderall for the
condition. The problems began when A.E.S. was three or four years old and
started preschool, but he was not diagnosed until April 2013, at which time he
began taking medication. Alston testified that when he takes his medication as
prescribed, A.E.S. tends to sit quietly, attends to tasks with no problem, focuses
more, listens, follows directions, and experiences no disturbances. But when he
does not take his medication, he becomes hyper and unable to stay on task. A.E.S.
currently sees his physician every three months and gets monthly medication
refills. (Tr. 37-40, 44.)
A.E.S. is in regular classes at school and was recommended for the gifted
program. He does not participate in any after-school academic or tutoring
programs. His performance and behavior have improved since he began taking
medication, and Alston no longer receives calls or complaints from the school.
(Tr. 45-46.) A.E.S. has difficulty with one girl in his class who always wants to
fight him. (Tr. 55-56.)
A.E.S. gets up in the morning between 7:00 and 7:30 a.m., although Alston
sometimes rouses him at 6:00 a.m. because it may take him a while to get things
together before school. A.E.S. then eats and takes his medication. He leaves
between 8:00 and 8:10 a.m. to catch the school bus. He gets home from school
between 4:00 and 4:10 p.m. at which time he has a snack, does his homework, and
-6-

then goes outside to play. It takes him about thirty to forty minutes to do his
homework, and he does it accurately. A.E.S. plays football and kickball outside
nearly every day with his brother and other children until dinner. After dinner, he
takes a bath, plays or watches television for about an hour, and then goes to bed.
He goes to bed between 9:00 and 9:30 p.m. (Tr. 47-49, 53-54.)
A.E.S. likes to watch the Disney Channel, Cartoon Network, and Lego
movies. He likes to play video games and Legos. He was on a baseball team in
Florida before he moved to Missouri. Alston helps him dress and sometimes helps
him bathe. A.E.S. can make himself a sandwich or a bowl of cereal and sometimes
goes shopping with Alston. He does not have chores to perform. He attends
church every Sunday with Alston and goes to Sunday school. (Tr. 49-51, 54.)
B.

Education Records
In September and October 2010, A.E.S. was disciplined for hitting students

and not obeying class rules. He was four years old and in pre-kindergarten. (Tr.
186-87.)
During the spring of 2012, A.E.S. was disciplined at school on eight
occasions – including five suspensions – for various behavioral issues, including
destruction of property, classroom disruption, disrespect, and use of profanity. He
was in kindergarten. (Tr. 161-64, 180-85.) During the fall of 2012, A.E.S. was
suspended from school eight times for hitting children, destruction of property,
-7-

classroom disruption, and not obeying class rules. He was in first grade. (Tr. 15260, 166, 174-79.) This disruptive behavior continued into January 2013. (Tr. 151.)
A.E.S.’s first grade report card shows that A.E.S. had difficulty with certain
behavioral life skills, such as exhibiting self-control, listening and following
directions, cooperating, resolving conflicts, and following rules. He performed
well academically, showing basic or proficient progress in all areas. (Tr. 142-46.)
On May 24, 2013, A.E.S.’s first grade teacher, Christine Diggs, completed a
Teacher Questionnaire for disability determinations. Ms. Diggs reported that she
had been A.E.S.’s teacher since January 2013 and that A.E.S. performed at grade
level in reading and math, but below grade level in written language. In the
domain of Acquiring and Using Information, Ms. Diggs reported that A.E.S. had
an obvious problem in comprehending and doing math problems, but otherwise
had no or only slight problems in the domain. He had neither serious nor very
serious problems in the domain. In the domain of Attending and Completing
Tasks, Ms. Diggs reported that A.E.S. had obvious problems on a daily basis in
focusing long enough to complete an assigned task, refocusing to task, waiting to
take turns, changing from one activity to another without being disruptive,
organization, working without distracting himself or others, and working at a
reasonable pace. In all other respects, Ms. Diggs reported that A.E.S. had no or
only slight problems. A.E.S. had neither serious nor very serious problems in the
-8-

domain. In the domain of Interacting and Relating with Others, Ms. Diggs
reported that A.E.S. had a serious problem on a daily basis in the area of
expressing anger appropriately, explaining that A.E.S. could not deal with anger
without becoming violent. Ms. Diggs also reported that A.E.S. had obvious
problems in playing cooperatively, seeking attention appropriately, asking
permission appropriately, following rules, respecting adults in authority, and taking
turns in conversation. In the domain of Moving About and Manipulating Objects,
Ms. Diggs reported that A.E.S. had no problems. Finally, in the domain of Caring
for Himself, Ms. Diggs reported that A.E.S. had a serious problem on an hourly
basis in handling frustration appropriately and responding appropriately to changes
in mood. She also reported that A.E.S. had obvious problems in being patient
when necessary, identifying and appropriately asserting personal needs, and using
appropriate coping skills to meet demands of the school environment. In all other
respects, Ms. Diggs reported that A.E.S. had no or slight problems. Ms. Diggs
reported A.E.S. to be “much more on task” since he began taking medication
regularly. (Tr. 192-99.)
One year later, on April 24, 2014, A.E.S.’s second grade teacher, Wanda
Robinson, completed a Teacher Questionnaire for disability determinations. Ms.
Robinson reported that A.E.S. exhibited no problems in the domain of Acquiring
and Using Information, Interacting and Relating with Others, Moving About and
-9-

Manipulating Objects, and Caring for Himself. In the domain of Attending and
Completing Tasks, Ms. Robinson reported that A.E.S. had no problem or only
slight problems, explaining that A.E.S. may need instructions repeated or a
reminder to remain on task. Ms. Robinson reported that she did not know whether
A.E.S. took medication regularly. (Tr. 222-29.)
C.

Medical Records
On March 6, 2013, a social worker/therapist at Child Guidance Center

diagnosed A.E.S. with disruptive behavior disorder and anxiety disorder based on
reports that he did not follow directions, defied authority, and had anger outbursts.
It was believed that A.E.S. engaged in this behavior because of worry and
inconsistent structure in his home and school environments. From April 12
through June 3, 2013, Dr. Anna-Marie Veneracion-Yumul from the Child
Guidance Center provided psychiatric treatment to A.E.S. and prescribed Adderall
for ODD and ADHD. (Tr. 246.)
On June 12, 2013, Dr. Robert Cottone, a psychological consultant with
disability determinations, completed a Childhood Disability Evaluation wherein he
opined that A.E.S. had less than marked limitations in the domains of Acquiring
and Using Information, Attending and Completing Tasks, Interacting and Relating
with Others, and Caring for Himself; and no limitations in the domains of Moving
About and Manipulating Objects, and Health and Physical Well-Being. Dr.
- 10 -

Cottone based this opinion on his review of records from the Child Guidance
Center, teacher questionnaires, and the function reported completed by Alston in
May 2013. (Tr. 66-67.)
On July 3, 2013, A.E.S. visited Dr. Aurora Denise Zertuche-Sanchez at
Health Care for Kids for follow up of his ADHD. A.E.S.’s medical and
educational history was reviewed. Alston reported significant improvement in
A.E.S.’s behavior since beginning medication, including improved grades,
recommendation for the gifted program, and good results at home. Although
Alston expressed concern that the medication was wearing off before completion
of the school day, she admitted that she sometimes did not give A.E.S. a full dose
of medication in the morning. A.E.S. was reported to have residual problems on
those days. Dr. Zertuche-Sanchez adjusted A.E.S.’s medication and instructed
Alston not to self-titrate the medication. (Tr. 276-78.)
On July 31, Alston reported to Dr. Zertuche-Sanchez that she was still trying
to figure out stable times to give A.E.S. his medication but reported that A.E.S.’s
behavior had improved at home. She reported that A.E.S. had been suspended
from summer camp the previous month because he lashed out at a teacher. She
also reported that A.E.S. continued to be jittery and had a decreased appetite with
his increased medication, and she expressed concern about A.E.S.’s potential need
for lifetime medication. Dr. Zertuche-Sanchez increased A.E.S.’s dosage of
- 11 -

Adderall and advised Alston to seek therapy or counseling for A.E.S. since
medication alone was not resolving his problems. (Tr. 273-75.)
During follow up examination on September 4, Dr. Zertuche-Sanchez noted
A.E.S. to be doing very well on his current dosage of medication given at
consistent times. She also noted that A.E.S.’s teachers reported above average
performance, and Alston reported that she had not received any calls or complaints
from school. A.E.S. was continued on his current medication and dosage. Alston
was instructed to return with A.E.S. in three months for follow up. (Tr. 270-72.)
On November 25, Alston reported to Dr. Ariane E. May at Health and
Dental Care for Kids that A.E.S.’s behavior created no problems at school and that
he was doing well and was able to focus at school. Alston reported that A.E.S. had
behavioral difficulties at home in that he was disorganized, forgetful, frustrated,
and had a short attention span. Alston also reported that A.E.S. had difficulty
falling asleep. Dr. May determined that A.E.S. was doing well on his current
dosage of Adderall and continued him on the current regimen. (Tr. 266-69.)
A.E.S. visited Dr. Christina G. Ingram at Health and Dental Care for Kids on
March 12, 2014. Alston reported that A.E.S.’s medication appeared to wear off at
the end of the school day, causing him to be restless, unable to concentrate, unable
to stay on task, and impulsive at home during the evening. Alston also reported
that A.E.S. had a poor self-image and had disregard for his personal safety.
- 12 -

Physical examination was unremarkable. Dr. Ingram noted A.E.S. to be defiant
during his examination in that he did not follow instructions, stood on the
examination table, walked on the examination table and chairs, and jumped on top
of a step stool. She noted, however, that he was engaging in age-appropriate
behavior. Dr. Ingram increased A.E.S.’s morning and afternoon dosages of
Adderall and instructed Alston to return with A.E.S. in one month for follow up.
(Tr. 262-65.)
In a letter dated July 16, 2014, and addressed to “To whom it may concern,”
Dr. May wrote that it was imperative that A.E.S. take his medication at certain
times of the day. (Tr. 278.)2
IV. The ALJ’s Decision
In his written decision, the ALJ determined that A.E.S. had not engaged in
substantial gainful activity since the date of application, that is, April 16, 2013. He
further found that A.E.S.’s impairments of ODD and ADHD were severe but that
they did not meet or medically equal the severity of an impairment listed in 20
C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (Tr. 15.) The ALJ also found A.E.S.’s
severe impairments not to functionally equal the severity of the listings,
specifically finding that A.E.S. had less than marked limitations in the domains of
2

This letter was submitted to the Appeals Council as additional evidence. I must consider this
additional evidence in determining whether the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial
evidence. Frankl v. Shalala, 47 F.3d 935, 939 (8th Cir. 1995); Richmond v. Shalala, 23 F.3d
1441, 1444 (8th Cir. 1994).
- 13 -

Acquiring and Using Information, Attending and Completing Tasks, Interacting
and Relating with Others, and Caring for Himself; and no limitations in the
domains of Moving About and Manipulating Objects, and Health and Physical
Well-Being. The ALJ thus found that A.E.S. had not been under a disability since
April 16, 2013. (Tr. 19-26.)
V. Discussion
To be entitled to SSI under Title XVI of the Act, A.E.S. must have been
disabled while his application for benefits was pending, that is, between April 16,
2013, and May 13, 2014. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.330, 416.335.
In his written decision, the ALJ found A.E.S.’s impairments not to meet or
medically equal the criteria described in any listed impairment, and particularly
Listing 112.11 for ADHD, which, under the Listing, is manifested “by
developmentally inappropriate degrees of inattention, impulsiveness, and
hyperactivity.” For a child-claimant to meet or medically equal this Listing, there
must be, at a minimum, “[m]edically documented findings of all three of the
following: 1. Marked inattention; and 2. Marked impulsiveness; and 3. Marked
hyperactivity[.]” 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, § 112.11(A). The
ALJ noted that no treating or examining physician made or even mentioned any
findings that would be equivalent to the severity required to meet this criteria. To
the extent Dr. Ingram observed “defiant” behavior during A.E.S.’s March 2014
- 14 -

examination, I note that she nevertheless reported this behavior to be appropriate
for his age. The ALJ’s determination that A.E.S.’s impairments did not meet the
criteria for a listed impairment is supported by substantial evidence.
The ALJ then set out the analysis under which the Commissioner is to
determine whether a child-claimant is disabled, and, with respect to each domain
of functioning, fully and thoughtfully summarized the evidence contained in the
record as a whole relating to A.E.S.’s impairments. For the following reasons, the
ALJ’s conclusions that A.E.S. did not experience marked limitations in any
domain is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
A.

Acquiring and Using Information
In this domain, the ALJ found A.E.S. to have less than marked limitations,

noting specifically Alston’s testimony that A.E.S. is in regular classes, does not
need extra help, and was recommended for gifted classes. The ALJ also noted
A.E.S.’s first grade teacher to report that A.E.S. had only slight problems in this
domain, with the only exception being in math where A.E.S. was reported to have
an “obvious” – but not “serious” – problem. Although the ALJ also noted that
A.E.S.’s “first grade report card” reported that his behavior problems
overshadowed his skills and interfered with his academic growth (see Tr. 20), I
note this report to actually be contained in A.E.S.’s kindergarten report card for the
2011-12 school year, which was before A.E.S. began treatment for his
- 15 -

impairments. (See 147-50.) Indeed, the record shows that A.E.S. functioned well
and had little, if any, difficulty upon receiving treatment and when he regularly
took his medication. A.E.S.’s first grade report card for the 2012-13 school year
showed A.E.S. to perform well academically, with basic or proficient progress in
all areas. And his second grade teacher reported in April 2014 that A.E.S. had no
difficulties in acquiring and using information. Impairments that are controllable
by medication do not support a finding of disability. Collins ex rel. Williams v.
Barnhart, 335 F.3d 726, 729 (8th Cir. 2003).
The ALJ’s finding that A.E.S. had less than marked limitations in this
domain is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
B.

Attending and Completing Tasks
The ALJ found A.E.S. to have less than marked limitations in this domain,

specifically noting Alston’s testimony that A.E.S. completes his homework after
school before going outside to play, and her report to A.E.S.’s doctor that his
symptoms of frustration and disorganization are relieved with medication. The
ALJ also noted A.E.S.’s first grade teacher to report that he had only slight to
obvious problems in this domain; and I note that his second grade teacher reported
only that he needed instructions repeated or a reminder to remain on task. To the
extent the ALJ again mistakenly took A.E.S.’s kindergarten report card as his first
grade report card, I note that A.E.S.’s reported difficulties with listening, following
- 16 -

through with directions, and attending to tasks during instruction – as summarized
by the ALJ – occurred well before the pendency of A.E.S.’s application for
benefits and prior to A.E.S. receiving treatment, which successfully controlled the
symptoms of his impairments. See Collins, 335 F.3d at 729.
The ALJ’s finding that A.E.S. had less than marked limitations in this
domain is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
C.

Interacting and Relating with Others
The ALJ found A.E.S. to have less than marked limitations in this domain,

specifically noting that A.E.S. plays with friends every day and has played on
sports teams with other children. The ALJ also noted that A.E.S. attends Sunday
school every week. To the extent the record showed A.E.S. to have difficulty with
some girls at school and that his first grade teacher reported anger issues in this
domain, the ALJ noted the record to also show that Alston was not giving A.E.S.
his full dose of medication during that time.3 After A.E.S. began receiving his full
dose of medication at consistent times, he no longer experienced reported
behavioral issues at school and, indeed, his second grade teacher reported in April
2014 that A.E.S. had no problems in this domain. See Collins, 335 F.3d at 729.
The ALJ’s finding that A.E.S. had less than marked limitations in this

3

To the extent the ALJ also noted that A.E.S. had been suspended from school for behavioral
issues, the record shows that these suspensions occurred before Alston filed for benefits and
before A.E.S. began receiving any type of treatment for his impairments.
- 17 -

domain is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
D.

Moving About and Manipulating Objects
The ALJ found A.E.S. to have no limitation in this domain, specifically

noting that there was no claim or evidence of record that A.E.S. was limited in any
way as defined by Social Security rules. My review of the record shows A.E.S. to
be able to play outdoor sports and to finely manipulate objects such as Legos and
video games. He is able to dress himself with some assistance from his mother,
which is not unusual for a six-to-seven-year-old child. In addition, A.E.S.’s
teachers reported that A.E.S. had no problems in this domain.
The ALJ’s finding that A.E.S. had no limitations in this domain is supported
by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
E.

Caring for Yourself
The ALJ found A.E.S. to have less than marked limitations his ability to care

for himself. The ALJ specifically noted that A.E.S. dresses, grooms, and bathes
himself and that his mother helps him to be sure he performs these tasks properly.
The ALJ also noted A.E.S.’s testimony that he can prepare a sandwich for himself
and that he accompanies his mother to the store. While A.E.S.’s first grade teacher
reported in May 2013 that he had a serious problem handling his frustration
appropriately and calming himself, his second grade teacher reported less than one
year later – after A.E.S. was regularly receiving his full dose of medication – that
- 18 -

he had no problems in this domain. Accordingly, to the extent A.E.S. may have
exhibited some difficulty in this domain during the relevant period, the ALJ’s
finding that his limitations were less than marked is supported by substantial
evidence.
F.

Health and Physical Well-Being
The ALJ found A.E.S. to have no limitations in this domain, specifically

noting that there was no claim or evidence of record that A.E.S. was limited in any
way as defined by Social Security rules. My review of the record shows A.E.S. not
to experience any significant adverse physical symptoms from his impairments or
treatment that affect his health and well-being or interfere with his physical
functioning.
The ALJ’s finding that A.E.S. had no limitations in this domain is supported
by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
VI. Conclusion
The ALJ considered all of the evidence of record and based his conclusions
on the record as a whole. He specifically reviewed and considered the reports and
observations of A.E.S.’s doctors, mother, and teachers who 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 A.E.S.’s impairments not
to meet, medically equal, or functionally equal a listed impairment, and thus found
- 19 -

him not disabled under the Regulations. This determination is supported by
substantial evidence on the record as a whole, primarily because A.E.S.’s
functioning in all areas was appropriate and effective when he regularly took his
medication. Because the Commissioner’s final decision that A.E.S. 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
affirmed, and Celestina Alston’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
A separate Judgment is entered herewith.

____________________________________
CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 6th day of February, 2017.

- 20 -