Losee v. Colvin
Filing
32
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - It is hereby Ordered that the Commissioner's decision in this case is Affirmed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 9/15/2016. (las)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
SHAWNDA LOSEE o/b/o T.M., a minor
child,
Court No. 2:15-cv-00162-PMW
Plaintiff,
vs.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
Defendant.
Plaintiff, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeks review by this Court of the final decision
of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) denying her application for
supplemental security income (SSI) on behalf of T.M., a minor child. The Court, following its
review of the pleadings and its consideration of the oral argument in this matter, AFFIRMS the
Commissioner’s final decision denying Plaintiff’s application for SSI.
BACKGROUND
T.M. was 10 years old when Plaintiff filed for SSI in July 2011 (see Certified
Administrative Transcript (Tr.) 358). Plaintiff claimed that T.M. was disabled by Asperger
syndrome, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD),
and generalized anxiety disorder (Tr. 405-406, 546).
The ALJ followed the Commissioner’s three-step sequential evaluation process for the
consideration of childhood disability claims (Tr. 358-70). See generally 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(a)
1
(outlining the process). The ALJ found that T.M. had impairments that were “severe” within the
meaning of the agency’s regulations: autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, and ODD vs. conduct
disorder (Tr. 358). The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s impairments did not meet, medically equal, or
functionally equal a per se disabling impairment from 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1
(the Listings) (Tr. 358-69). Thus, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff failed to meet the strict
standard to establish that T.M. was disabled under the Social Security Act (Tr. 369).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court “review[s] the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether the factual
findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct legal standards were
applied.” Mays v. Colvin, 739 F.3d 569, 571 (10th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla,” or such evidence as a “reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080, 1084
(10th Cir. 2007). “In reviewing the ALJ’s decision, [a court may] neither reweigh the evidence
nor substitute [its] judgment for that of the agency.” Newbold v. Colvin, 718 F.3d 1257, 1262
(10th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where the evidence as a whole supports the
ALJ’s decision, that decision must be affirmed, regardless of whether the Court would have
reached a different result had the record been before it de novo. See Ellison v. Sullivan,
929 F.2d 534, 536 (10th Cir. 1990).
ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
Plaintiff presents two challenges to the ALJ’s decision. She argues that the ALJ erred
when he (1) found that T.M.’s impairments did not meet a Listing and (2) found that T.M. had
2
less than marked restriction in the domain of “caring for yourself” (ECF No. 19). The Court
rejects these arguments for substantially the same reasons presented by the Commissioner in her
Answer Brief (ECF No. 29), as discussed below.
A. The ALJ’s finding that T.M.’s impairments did not meet or medically equal a
Listing was reasonable in this case.
The ALJ found that, while T.M. had “severe” impairments of autism spectrum disorder,
ADHD, and ODD, those impairments did not meet or medically equal Listing 112.08 (for
personality disorders), Listing 112.10 (for autistic disorders), or Listing 112.11 (for ADHD)
(Tr. 358-60). For T.M. to meet or medically equal Listing 112.08, 112.10, or 112.11, Plaintiff
was required to submit medical evidence demonstrating that he met the “B2” criteria, i.e., at least
two of the appropriate age-group criteria in paragraph B2 of 112.02. See 20 C.F.R. Part 404,
Subpt. P, App. 1 §§ 112.08, 112.10, 112.11. Those criteria include “[m]arked impairment in
age-appropriate personal functioning, documented by history and medical findings (including
consideration of information from parents or other individuals who have knowledge of the child,
when such information is needed and available) and including, if necessary, appropriate
standardized tests. . . .” 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 § 112.02(B)(2).
The Court finds that the ALJ did not ignore evidence relevant to the B2 criteria. The
ALJ’s finding that T.M.’s impairments did not meet or medically equal the aforementioned
Listings was supported by substantial evidence, including the opinions of the State agency
psychologists Drs. Shafer and Cohn (see Tr. 437, 449). The ALJ thoroughly discussed the
evidence, and the Court may not reweigh the evidence. Newbold, 718 F.3d at 1262. Even
assuming arguendo that the Court might have arrived at a different conclusion on this same
3
evidence, the Court’s function is limited to determining whether the ALJ had substantial
evidence to support his findings and decision. Ellison, 929 F.2d at 536. Thus, the Court finds
that the ALJ’s conclusion that T.M.’s impairments did not meet or medically equal a Listing is
supported by substantial evidence and free of reversible legal error.
B. The ALJ’s finding that T.M.’s impairments did not functionally equal a Listing was
reasonable in this case.
At step three of the evaluation of childhood disability claims, an ALJ must also consider
whether the child’s impairments functionally equal a Listing. 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(a). To
functionally equal a Listing, the child’s impairments must result in marked limitations in
two domains of functioning or an extreme limitation in one domain. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(a).
There are six domains of functioning: (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.
20 C.F.R.
§ 416.926a(b)(1)(i)-(vi).
Here, the ALJ found that T.M.’s mental impairments did not functionally equal a Listing
because they did not result in either marked limitations in two domains or extreme limitation in
one domain (Tr. 364-69). Instead, the ALJ found (1) no limitation in acquiring and using
information; (2) less than marked limitation in attending and completing tasks; (3) marked
limitation in interacting and relating with others; (4) no limitation in moving about and
manipulating objects; (5) less than marked limitation in the ability to care for himself; and (6) no
limitation in health and physical well-being (Tr. 364-69).
4
This finding was consistent with the uncontradicted medical opinions of Drs. Shafer and
Cohn that T.M. experienced these same degrees of limitation in the six functional domains and
thus did not functionally equal a Listing (Tr. 435-37, 447-49). This finding was also consistent
with T.M.’s teacher’s statement that T.M. had “no problem” in most areas of caring for himself,
and only one “slight problem”—cooperating in, or being responsible for, taking needed
medications (Tr. 570). When viewed in its entirety, the record contains substantial evidence to
support the ALJ’s findings and application of those findings to the prescribed limitations. Thus,
the Court finds that the ALJ’s conclusion that T.M.’s impairments did not functionally equal a
Listing was supported by substantial evidence and free of reversible legal error.
CONCLUSION
The Court concludes that the ALJ’s decision in this matter is supported by substantial
evidence in the record and that the correct legal standards were applied. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
arguments fail as a matter of law. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Commissioner’s
decision in this case is AFFIRMED. Judgment shall be entered in accordance with Fed. R. Civ.
P. 58, consistent with Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 296-304 (1993). The Clerk of Court is
directed to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 15th day of September, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
PAUL M. WARNER
United States Magistrate Judge
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?