United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division
D.N.M., a minor, by his mother, Aletrus M. Brame, Plaintiff,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Denise K. LaRue United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff D. N.M. (“D.”), a minor, filed an application for supplemental-security-income benefits, alleging that he became disabled on June 24, 2010. The Commissioner finally denied his application and D. filed the present suit for judicial review of that decision. The assigned district judge referred this Cause to this magistrate judge for submission of a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B). For the reasons explained herein, this magistrate judge recommends that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed.
Standards of review and disability
Judicial review of the Commissioner's factual findings is deferential: courts must affirm if her findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g); Skarbek v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 500, 503 (7th Cir. 2004); Gudgel v. Barnhart, 345 F.3d 467, 470 (7th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance, of the evidence. Wood v. Thompson, 246 F.3d 1026, 1029 (7th Cir. 2001). If the evidence is sufficient for a reasonable person to conclude that it adequately supports the Commissioner's decision, then it is substantial evidence. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971); Carradine v. Barnhart, 360 F.3d 751, 758 (7th Cir. 2004). This limited scope of judicial review derives from the principle that Congress has designated the Commissioner, not the courts, to make disability determinations:
In reviewing the decision of the ALJ [administrative law judge], we cannot engage in our own analysis of whether [the claimant] is severely impaired as defined by the SSA regulations. Nor may we reweigh evidence, resolve conflicts in the record, decide questions of credibility, or, in general, substitute our own judgment for that of the Commissioner. Our task is limited to determining whether the ALJ's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.
Young v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 995, 1001 (7th Cir. 2004). Carradine, 360 F.3d at 758. While review of the Commissioner's factual findings is deferential, review of her legal conclusions is de novo. Jones v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 1155, 1160 (7th Cir. 2010).
A child under the age of eighteen is eligible for SSI benefits if he has a medically determinable mental or physical impairment that causes 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 twelve months. 42 U.S.C.
§ 1382c(a)(3)(C)(i). A physical or mental impairment is one that results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities that are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. Id.
§ 1382c(a)(3)(D). In determining whether impairments are disabling, the combined effect of all of a child's impairments must be considered, without regard to whether any single impairment alone is of disabling severity. 42 U.S.C.
By regulation, the Social Security Administration (ASSA") has determined that satisfaction of one of the Listings of Impairments for minors, 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, Appendix 1, Part B, fulfills the statutory requirement that a child's impairment or combination of impairments "results in marked and severe functional limitations." The Listing of Impairments, Part B, is a compilation of medical conditions, divided into fourteen major body systems, that the SSA has pre-determined are disabling in children. 20 C.F.R.
§ 416.925. In general, each listed condition is defined by two sets of criteria: first, diagnostic findings that substantiate the existence of a listed condition and, second, sets of related functional limitations that substantiate the condition's disabling severity. Id. A child's impairment or group of impairments can satisfy a listed condition in three ways: by meeting all of the listed criteria for the condition, 20 C.F.R.
§ 416.925(c)(3); by medically equaling the criteria, id. § 416.925(c)(5); or by functionally equaling the criteria, id.
A child's impairment meets a listed condition only when it satisfies all of the criteria of the listing. 20 C.F.R.
§ 416.925(c)(3) and (d). A child's impairment medically equals a listed condition when it is at least equal in severity and duration to the criteria of a listed condition. Id.
§ 416.926(a). Medical equivalence will be found in one of three ways: (1) the child's impairment, though listed, is lacking one or more of the medical or severity criteria, but other findings related to the impairment are of at least equal medical significance to the listed criteria, id.
§ 416.926(b)(1); (2) the child's impairment is not a listed condition but the impairment's medical and severity findings are of at least equal medical significance to a closely analogous listed condition, id.
§ 416.926(b)(2); or (3) the child has a combination of impairments, no one of which equals a listed condition, but the combined impairments' medical and severity findings are of at least equal medical significance to a listed condition, id.
A child's impairment or combination of impairments will functionally equal a listed condition when it is of listing-level severity, which the SSA has defined to mean that the child's impairments result in a "marked" limitation in two domains of functioning or an "extreme" limitation in one domain. 20 C.F.R.
§ 416.926a(a). The six domains of functioning are (1) acquiring and using information, (2) attending to and completing tasks, (3) interacting and relating with others, (4) moving about and manipulating objects, (5) caring for self, and (6) health and physical well-being, id.
§ 416.926a(b)(1). The SSA has defined constituent activities within each domain and their normal levels of performance at different age groups. Id.
§ 416.926a(g)-(l). In general, a "marked" limitation exists when a child's impairment or combination of impairments "interferes seriously with [her] ability to independently initiate, sustain, or complete activities" within a particular domain. It is a limitation that is "more than moderate" but "less than extreme, " and is the level of functioning that is expected with scores that are more than two, but less than three, standard deviations below the mean on standardized tests. Id.
§ 416.926a(e)(2). An "extreme" limitation is one that interferes "very seriously" with a child's ability to perform activities within a domain. It is "more than marked, " and is the level of functioning that is expected with scores at least three standard deviations below the mean on standardized testing. Id.
The SSA has prescribed a three-step sequential process for evaluating child disability claims. 20 C.F.R.
§ 416.924. If disability eligibility can be determined at any step in the sequence, an application will not be reviewed further. Id.
§ 416.924(a). At the first step, if the child is engaged in substantial gainful activity, i.e., is earning money, then he is not disabled. Id.
§ 417.924(b). At the second step, if the child's impairments, or combination of impairments, are not severe, then he is not disabled. A severe impairment or combination of impairments is one that causes "more than minimal functional limitations." Id.
§ 416.924(c). At the third step, the child's impairments, either singly or in combination, must satisfy the criteria of at least one of the conditions included in Part B of the Listings of Impairments. Id.
§ 416.924(d). The applicant bears the burden of proof at each step of the process. If a child's impairments pass all three steps, and satisfies the duration requirement, then he is determined to be disabled.
An application for benefits, together with any evidence submitted by the applicant and obtained by the agency, undergoes initial review by a disability examiner and a physician or other medical specialist. If the application is denied, the applicant may request reconsideration review, which is conducted by different disability and medical experts. If denied again, the applicant may request a hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ"). An applicant who is dissatisfied with the decision of the ALJ may request the SSA's Appeals Council to review the decision. If the Appeals Council either affirms or declines to review the decision, then the applicant may file an action in district court for judicial review. 42 U.S.C.
Factual and procedural background
D. was nine years old at the time of his application and ten years old at ...