HENDERSON v. COLVIN

Filing 24

ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS [#21] ARE OVERRULED. THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [#20] IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW [#11] IS DENIED; THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER WHICH SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME TO PLAINTIFF IS AFFIRMED; AND THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 1/14/15. 1/15/15 ENTERED & E-MAILED.(fdc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MAGDALENE HENDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN COLVIN
Acting Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civ. No. 13-3510

ORDER
Plaintiff Magdalene Henderson, proceeding on behalf of her minor son, T. H., seeks
review of the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of T.H.’s claim for supplemental security
income. (Doc. No. 3.) The Magistrate Judge has recommended denying review, Plaintiff has
objected, and Defendant has responded. (Doc. Nos. 20, 21, 23.) For the following reasons, I
will overrule the objections and adopt the Report and Recommendation.
I.

BACKGROUND
The Social Security Administration denied T.H.’s claim for supplemental security income

in early 2010. (Doc. No. 20 at 2.) Plaintiff appealed and, after a hearing in April 2011, the ALJ
denied T.H.’s claim for benefits on June 22, 2011. (Id.) On June 20, 2013, Plaintiff filed a
Request for Review, alleging that the ALJ made several errors in denying T.H.’s claim for
benefits. (Id.)
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
The ALJ’s decision must be upheld if it is supported by “substantial evidence.” Monsour

Med. Ctr. v. Heckler, 806 F.2d 1185, 1190 (3d Cir. 1986). “Substantial evidence ‘does not mean
a large or considerable amount of evidence, but rather such relevant evidence as a reasonable

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 360
(3d Cir. 1999) (quoting Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 564–65 (1988)).
I must review de novo each issue addressed by the Magistrate Judge to which Plaintiff
has raised a timely and specific objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2002); see also Brown v.
Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011). I may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the [Magistrate Judge’s] findings and recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is also
within my discretion to rely on the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and recommendations.
See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980).
III.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff raises four objections to the Report.
The Magistrate Judge found that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that

T.H. did not have a “severe” impairment other than Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.
(Doc. No. 20 at 18.) Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to recognize evidence of Expressive
Language Disorder and Oppositional Defiant Disorder. (Doc. No. 21 at 4.) In an October 2010
evaluation, T.H.’s care provider set out her plan to rule-out a mild presentation of expressive
language disorder. (Doc. No. 20 at 18.) Speech therapy notes provided that T.H. produced
sentences of adequate length, that 98% of T.H.’s speech was stutter-free, and that his
intelligibility was good. (Id. at 18.) Only some records indicated that T.H. was diagnosed with
ODD, others included no such diagnosis. (Id. at 19.) Moreover, evaluation records undermined
the suggestion that T.H. had ODD: he was sociable, able to make friends, and his behaviors are
mild in the classroom setting. (Id.) Accordingly, there was substantial evidence to support the
ALJ’s finding that T.H. did not have other severe impairments. Finally, even assuming,
arguendo, that the ALJ erred in not recognizing that T.H. had ELP and ODD, any such error was

2

harmless because the ALJ found that T.H. had one severe impairment—ADHD. (Id. at 20);
Salles v. Commissioner of Social Security, 229 F. App’x. 140, 145 n.2 (3d Cir. 2007) (“Because
the ALJ found in Salles's favor at Step Two, even if he had erroneously concluded that some of
her other impairments were non-severe, any error was harmless.”). Accordingly, I will overrule
the objection.
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s determination that substantial evidence
supported the ALJ’s finding that T.H. did not meet or medically equal the listing of impairments.
(Id. at 6-9.) I agree with the Magistrate Judge that “[t]he record illustrates no marked limitations
in social functioning or concentration, persistence or pace, or in any of the other areas provided
for in [Listing 112.02].” (Doc. No. 20 at 32.) The ALJ thoroughly explained the record
evidence addressing T.H.’s recorded behavioral difficulties, and appropriately found that this
evidence was insufficient to show “serious interference” with T.H.’s ability to function
independently, appropriately, effectively, and on a sustained basis. (Id.); 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404,
Subpt. P, App. 1, Listing 112.00(C). Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ erred in analyzing T.H.’s
Global Assessment of Function scores. (Doc. No. 21 at 7.) Again, I agree with the Magistrate
Judge that the ALJ properly analyzed the scores and discussed why some of the recorded GAF
scores were inconsistent with other record evidence. See Glover v. Astrue, Civ. No. 07-2601,
2008 WL 517229, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 27, 2008) (ALJ must explain why GAF scores were
discounted). Accordingly, I will overrule Plaintiff’s objection.
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s determination that the ALJ adequately
explained his finding that T.H. did not functionally equal the listing of impairments. (Doc. No.
21 at 10.) The record reveals, however, that the ALJ adequately explained each of the six
domains on which a child’s functional limitations are evaluated.

3

(Doc. No. 20 at 32-41.)

Moreover, the ALJ appropriately summarized the medical evidence of record in concluding that
T.H.’s condition did not functionally equal the listings.

Once again, because substantial

evidence supports the ALJ’s findings, I will overrule Plaintiff’s objection.
Finally, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly rejected the lay testimony of three
witness—Plaintiff, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Cook. (Doc. No. 21 at 10.) Once again, substantial
evidence supports the ALJ’s findings. The ALJ explained in ample detail why he did not accept
the testimony of Plaintiff and Ms. Taylor. (Doc. No. 20 at 48.) Similarly, the ALJ explained that
it was difficult to reconcile Ms. Cook’s hearing testimony with her prior statements that T.H. was
generally well-behaved. (Doc. No. 23 at 5.) Accordingly, I will overrule Plaintiff’s objection.
******
AND NOW, this 14th day of January 2015, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Request for
Review, the Commissioner’s Response, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge, Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation, and Defendant’s Response, it is
hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. No. 21) are OVERRULED;
2. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 20) is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
3. Plaintiff’s Request for Review (Doc. No. 11) is DENIED;
4. The decision of the Commissioner which supplemental security income to Plaintiff is
AFFIRMED; and
5. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED for statistical purposes.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Paul S. Diamond
_________________________
Paul S. Diamond, J.
4