ROYER v. ASTRUE

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER denying 11 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 15 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. See Memorandum Judgment Order for further details. Signed by Judge Gustave Diamond on 3/27/12. (gpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MATTHEW J. ROYER, by
HARRY J. ROYER,
Plaintiff,

v.

Civil Action No. 11-14J

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant
MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER
AND NOW, this
of the parties'

~~

of March, 2012, upon due consideration

cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to

plaintiff's request for review of the decision of the Commissipner
of

Social

application

("Commissioner" )

Security
for

child's

supplemental

denying

security

plaintiff's

income

("CSSI")

under Title XVI of the Social Security Act ("Act"), IT IS ORDERED
that the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (Document No.
15) be, and the same hereby is, granted and plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment

(Document No.

11)

be,

and the same hereby is,

denied.
As the factfinder, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") has an
obligation to weigh all of the facts and evidence of record and
may

reject

or

discount

reasons for doing so.
Cir. 1999).

any

evidence

if

Plummer v. Apfel,

the

ALJ

explains

the

186 F.3d 422, 429 (3d.

Where the ALJ's findings are supported by substantial

~A072

(Rev. 8/82)

evidence, a reviewing court is bound by those findings, even if it

would have decided the factual inquiry differently.
Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 38 {3d Cir. 2001}.

Fargnoli v.

These well-established

principles preclude a reversal or remand of the ALJ's deciSion
here because the record contains substantial evidence to support
the ALJ's findings and conclusions.
On January 10, 2008, Harry J. Royer filed an application. for
CSSI on behalf of his minor son, Matthew J. Royerl, alleging a
disability onset date of March 28, 1994 {his date of birth}, due
to bilateral

club feet

and a

learning disorder.

application was denied initially.

Plaintiff's

At plaintiff's request an ALJ

held a hearing on February 4, 2010, at which Matthew, represented
by counsel, and his father appeared and testified.
25,

On February

2010, the ALJ issued a decision finding that Matthew is not

disabled.

On November 18, 2010, the Appeals Council denied review

making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner.
Under the basic definition of disability for children set
forth in the Act, an individual under the age of eighteen shall be
considered
determinable
marked

and

disabled

if

physical
severe

that

or

mental

functional

individual
impairment,

limitations,

"has

a

medically

which results
and

which

can

in
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.H
U.S.C. §1382c(a} (3) (C) (i)

1

'I.1!.Aon
(Rev. 8/82)

i

see

42

20 C.F.R. §416.906.

Matthew was fifteen-years old at the time of the hearing before

the ALJ.

- 2 ­

In determining whether a child is disabled under the Act, the
ALJ must determine in sequence:
substantial gainful activity;
severe

impairment;

(3)

meets,

if

medically equals,

(1)

whether the child is doing

(2) if not, whether the child has a

so,

whether

the

child's

impairment

or functionally equals the listin$ of

impairments set forth in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix
1.

20 C.F.R. §416.924(a).
Here, the ALJ found at step 2 that Matthew suffers from the

severe impairments of a learning disorder, an oppositional defiant
disorder,

and

a

history

of

bilateral

club

feet

status

surgical

repair with associated degenerative

j oint

However,

after

records,

reviewing

Matthew's

medical

post

disease. 2
school

records, and teacher/counselor questionnaires, and considering the
testimony of both Matthew and his father, the ALJ found that those
impairments,

alone or in combination,

do not meet or medically

equal the severity of any of the impairments listed in Appendix 1
of

20

C. F. R.,

Part

404,

Subpart

P,

nor

do

they

limitations that functionally equal the listings.

result

in

As a result,

the ALJ found at step 3 that Matthew is not disabled within the
meaning of the Act.
Plaintiff raises two challenges to the ALJ's finding of not
disabled at step 3:

(1)

the ALJ erred in finding that Matthew's

impairments do not meet or medically equal any listing; and,

(2)

the

not

ALJ

erred

in

finding

that

Matthew's

impairments

do

2
At step I, there is not dispute that Matthew has never engaged
in substantial gainful activity. (R. 12).
~A072

(Rev. 8182)

- 3 ­

functionally equal any listing.
court

is

satisfied

that

the

After reviewing the record, this
ALJ's

findings

are

supported by

substantial evidence.
At step 3 of the sequential evaluation process for children,
the ALJ must determine whether a claimant's severe impairments
meet, medically equal, or functionally equal a listed impairment.
20 C.F.R. §416.924(d).

The regulations set forth specific rules

for evaluating whether the claimant has an impairment that meets
a listing
C.F.R.

(20 C.F.R.

§416.926)

or

§416.925),

medically equals a listing

functionally equals

a

listing

(20

(20

C.F.R.

§416. 926 (a) ) .
First, plaintiff's challenge to the ALJ's step 3 finding that
Matthew's impairments do not meet or medically equal any listed
impairment

is without merit.

In making this

finding,

the ALJ

adhered to the standards set forth in §§416.925 and 416.926.
identified

the

relevant

listings

for

disorders

of

He
the

musculoskeletal system (101.00) and for mental disorders (112.00
et seq.),

(R. 12), and set forth his rationale as to why Matthew's

impairments do not meet or medically equal any of those listings,
particularly,

Listings 101.00,

et seq.,

relating to his severe

impairment of bilateral club feet status post surgical repair with
associated degenerative joint disease, and Listings 112.02, 112.05
and 112.08 relating to his
defiant disorder.

learning disorder and oppositional

(R. 12-13).

Plaintiff now contends that his impairments meet or medically
equal Listings 101.02 and/or 112.02.
'A072
(Rev. 8/82)

-

4

­

However, plaintiff presented

no medical evidence establishing that either Matthew's club foot
with associated degenerative joint disease nor his learning or
emotional disorders meet or medically equal all of the criteria
for either of those listings.
As to Listing 101.02, the ALJ expressly found that there is
no evidence of an inability to ambulate effectively which would be
required to meet the A criteria of that listing.

The ALJ pointed

out that a physical exam performed by Dr. Sathya in January of
2010

showed Matthew to be well with normal

sensory and motor

neurological findings, normal lower extremity joints and a normal
gait.

(R. 13).

He further noted that although Matthew has been

prescribed orthotics and braces, there is no evidence that he ever
has been prescribed a hand-held assistive device for ambulation.
As to Listing 112.02, the ALJ explicitly found that there is no
evidence

of

marked

impairment

age-appropriate

in

cognitive/communicative, social or personal functioning or marked
difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence or pace.
(R.

12).
In order to show that a medical condition meets or equals the

severity of a listed impairment, a claimant must present medical
findings which meet or equal in severity all of the criteria for
a

listed

(1989).

impairment.

Sullivan v.

Zebley,

493

U.S.

521,

531

Here, plaintiff failed to produce such evidence, and the

evidence which was before the ALJ does not support such a finding.
As

the

ALJ

noted,

no

medical

source

of

record

opined

that

Matthew's impairments meet or medically equal any listing and, to
'llt,A072

(Rev. 8/82)

- 5 ­

the contrary,
Matthew's

the state agency medical consultants who reviewed

file

concluded that his

medically equal any listing.

impairments do not meet or

Accordingly,

the court finds no

error in the ALJ's step 3 finding that Matthew's impairments do
not meet or medically equal any listed impairment. 3
Plaintiff next contends that the ALJ erroneously found that
Matthew's impairments do not functionally equal the listings.
Under

the

regulations,

an

impairment

functionally

equals

the

listings if it results in \\marked" limitations 4 in two domains of
functioning or an "extreme" limitationS in one domain.
§416.926a(a).

20 C.F.R.

The six domains of functioning to be considered in

this evaluation 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
yourself;

and

(6 )

health

and

physical

well-being.

§416. 926a (b) (1) (i) - (vi) .

3
Plaintiff's suggestion that the ALJ failed to consider the
limiting effects of all of Matthew's impairments in combination is
belied by the record.
The ALJ expressly noted that Matthew does not
have "an impairment or a combination of impairments that meets or
medically equals one of the listed impairments," (R. 12), and a review
of the ALJ's decision confirms that his analysis considered all of
Matthew's impairments in combination.
4
The regulations describe a \\marked" limitation as "more than
moderate" but \\less than extreme."
§416 . 926a (e) (2) (i).
A \\marked"
limitation in a domain will be found "when your impairment (s) interferes
seriously with your ability to independently initiate, sustain, or
complete activities."
S
An \\extreme" limitation is a limitation that is \\more than
marked" but does not necessarily mean a total lack or loss of ability
to function.
§416.926a(e) (3) (i).

<\\It.AOn
(Rev,8/82}

- 6 ­

In this case, the ALJ determined that Matthew has "less than
marked"

limitations

information;

in

attending

the
and

domains

of

completing

acquiring

tasks;

and

using

interacting

relating with others; and health and physical well-being.

and

The ALJ

also found that Matthew has "no" limitations in the domains of
moving about and manipulating objects and caring for yourself.
(R.

14-23).

limitations

Accordingly,
in

any

two

because the ALJ did not find marked
domains

of

functioning,

or

extreme

limitations in anyone, he concluded that Matthew's impairments
are

not

functionally

equivalent

in

severity

to

any

listed

impairment.
Plaintiff contends that the record supports a finding that,
Matthew

has

at

interacting and

least

marked

relating

limitations

to others;

in

four

domains:

attending and completing

tasks; caring for yourself; and, health and physical well-being.
Upon review,

the court is satisfied that there is substantial

evidence in the record supporting the ALJ's finding that Matthew
does not have marked limitations in any of the domains.
In determining that Matthew's impairments do not functionally
equal the listings, the ALJ thoroughly and exhaustively considered
all of the relevant evidence of record relating to all of the
domains of functioning and he properly evaluated all of

that

evidence in light of the criteria set forth in §416.926a of the
regulations.

(R. 14-23).

The substantial evidence in support of

the ALJ's finding is set forth in detail in his decision and need
not be reiterated here.
~A072

(Rev. 8/82)

- 7 ­

Conversely, plaintiff has pointed to no relevant medical or
other evidence which would support a finding of marked limitations
in any of the six domains.

In fact, there is no such evidence.

As a finding of functional equivalence requires marked limitations
in at least two domains, or extreme limitations in one domain, the
ALJ's finding that Matthew's impairments do not functionally equal
the listings must be affirmed.
After
evidence

carefully and methodically

of

record,

the

ALJ

considering all

determined

disabled within the meaning of the Act.

that

William

of

the

is

not

The ALJ's findings and

conclusions are supported by substantial evidence and are not
otherwise

erroneous.

Accordingly,

the

decision

of

Commissioner must be affirmed.

/~~

Gustave Diamond
United States District Judge

cc: J. Kirk Kling, Esq.
630 Pleasant Valley Boulevard, Suite B
Altoona, PA 16602
Stephanie L. Haines

Assistant U.S. Attorney

319 Washington Street

Room 224, Penn Traffic Building

Johnstown, PA 15901

~A072

(Rev. 8/82)

-

8 ­

the