Filing 11


Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA D E B R A JACKSON o/b/o A.R., P la in tif f , v. M IC H A E L J. ASTRUE, Commissioner o f Social Security, D e f e n d a n t. C iv il Action No. 09-3847 M EM ORANDUM A u g u s t 12, 2010 Pollak, J. O n May 10, 2010, United States Magistrate Judge Jacob P. Hart filed a Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n ("R&R") (docket no. 10) recommending that the request for review m a d e by Debra Jackson, on behalf of her son, A.R., in this social security appeal be d e n ie d . R&R at 12. Claimant has filed no objections to the R&R. I. F a c tu a l and Procedural Background T h e R&R sets out the background of the case in detail. A.R was eleven years old a t the time that his mother filed an application for SSI benefits. Id. In the application, s h e alleged that he had suffered from attention-deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD) and a le a rn in g disorder since birth. Id. When the agency denied Jackson's disability request, 1 A.R. was fifteen years old. Id. Jackson then requested a de novo hearing before an ALJ. Id. The ALJ issued his decision finding that A.R. was not entitled to benefits on D e c e m b e r 18, 2008. Id. at 2. The Appeals Council denied claimant's request for review. Id. II. Legal Standards The ALJ was asked to determine whether A.R. was disabled under 1614(a)(3)(C) o f the Social Security Act.1 The ALJ followed the three-step process outlined in 20 C .F .R . 416.924(a) to determine whether claimant was entitled to benefits. In order to be a w a rd e d benefits, first, the claimant must be found to not be engaged in any "substantial g a in f u l activity." 20 C.F.R. 416.924(b). Second, the claimant must suffer an im p a irm e n t or combination of impairments which are severe. 20 C.F.R. 416.924(c). Third, the claimant's impairment "must meet, medically equal, or functionally equal in s e v e rity a listed impairment" as defined in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C .F .R . 416.924(d). If a child does not meet or equal a listed impairment, he can be f o u n d functionally equivalent to a listed impairment when he suffers marked limitations in two of six areas of functioning, or an extreme limitation in one of the six areas of f u n c tio n in g . 20 C.F.R. 416.926a. T h e ALJ determined that A.R. suffered impairments due to his ADHD and a 1 An individual is disabled under 1614(a)(3)(C) of the Social Security Act if he is under the age of eighteen and suffers from a medically determinable physical or mental impairment which results in severe and marked limitations which last continually over a time span of not less than twelve months. 2 learning disorder. However, he found that these impairments or combination of im p a irm e n ts, did not meet or medically equal a listed impairment in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, S u b p a rt P, Appendix 1. Record at 66. The ALJ determined that A.R. has less than a m a rk e d limitation in four areas of functioning and no limitations in the remaining two a re a s . Record at 73. Accordingly the ALJ found that A.R. was not disabled. Jackson asserts that the ALJ erred in failing to: (1) discuss that A.R.'s hours of s p e c ia l education instruction increased during eighth-grade; (2) discuss the global a s s e s sm e n t of functioning (GAF) score awarded to A.R; (3) acknowledge the re c o m m e n d a tio n made by A.R.'s pediatrician that he receive a one-on-one aide; and (4) e x p la in A.R.'s performance evaluation on the Brown ADD scales. R&R at 3. III. Discussion T h is court in reviewing the R&R and ALJ's decision must determine whether the C o m m is s io n e r's decision is supported by substantial evidence. Fagnoli v. Massanari, 247 F .3 d 34, 38 (3d Cir. 2001). The Third Circuit has stated that "[s]ubstantial evidence . . . m e a n s such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate." Id. (in te rn a l citations and quotations omitted). J u d g e Hart found that the ALJ did fail to discuss some of the evidence referenced b y Jackson. R&R at 12. However, Judge Hart concluded that the ALJ's errors would not h a v e changed the Commissioner's decision, and that Jackson's motion for review should th e re f o re be denied. 3 The R&R is correct that the arguments raised by Jackson, even if valid, do not s h o w the ALJ's decision lacked substantial evidence. The increase in special education in s tru c tio n was not determinative, as A.R. was found not to have a marked limitation in a n area of functioning. R&R at 8. Second, "the evidence clearly fails to support a f in d in g that A.R. had mental-health related behavioral problems to the degree indicated b y a GAF score of 40." R&R at 9. As the R&R explains, Jackson's statements to the p e rs o n conducting the GAF test that A.R. had been suspended five times during sixthg ra d e , or four times during seventh-grade, were without support. R&R at 9. Rather, A .R .'s special needs evaluation at the end of sixth-grade did not mention any behavioral is su e s, besides distractibility, and his IEPs for April, 2006 and for the 2007-2008 schoolye a r did not set any behavioral goal. R&R at 9-10. Third, the ALJ did, in fact, mention the letter written by A.R.'s treating physician, D r. Selbst, recommending that he receive one-on-one assistance. R&R at 11. The ALJ f o u n d that the fact he did not receive such services was significant, given that "no one at h is school seemed to feel he needed any behavioral assistance." R&R 11. Finally, Jackson asserts that the ALJ erred in failing to mention the results of the B ro w n ADD Scale used as part of A.R.'s behavioral evaluation. The evaluation does not a d d re s s the severity of his limitations. The most relevant parts of this evaluation state, " [ A .R .] appears to be having some difficulty with his attending, memory, and auditory p ro c e s s in g skills. [A.R.] will require accommodations and support in order to assist him 4 with these skills in the classroom." R&R at 11. However, another evaluation showed his p ro b le m s in this domain were "obvious," but not "serious" or "very serious." R&R at 12. Judge Hart, therefore, concluded "[t]here is nothing in the Brown ADD Scales . . . which w o u ld appear to require a different result; they simply confirm that A.R. has these lim ita tio n s ." The parties have not presented any objections. After reviewing the record, having g iv e n "reasoned consideration to the magistrate's report before adopting it as the decision o f the court," this court approves and adopts Judge Hart's R&R. Henderson v. Carlson, 8 1 2 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987). 5

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?