United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM C. LEE, JUDGE.
matter is before the court for judicial review of a final
decision of the defendant Commissioner of Social Security
Administration denying Plaintiff's application for Child
Insurance Benefits as provided for in the Social Security
Act. Section 205(g) of the Act provides, inter alia,
"[a]s part of his answer, the [Commissioner] shall file
a certified copy of the transcript of the record including
the evidence upon which the findings and decision complained
of are based. The court shall have the power to enter, upon
the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment
affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the
[Commissioner], with or without remanding the case for a
rehearing." It also provides, "[t]he findings of
the [Commissioner] as to any fact, if supported by
substantial evidence, shall be conclusive. . . ." 42
provides that an applicant for benefits must establish an
"inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity
by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental
impairment which can be expected to last for a continuous
period of no less than 12 months. . . ." 42 U.S.C.
§416(i)(1); 42 U.S.C. §423(d)(1)(A). A physical or
mental impairment is "an impairment that results from
anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities
which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and
laboratory diagnostic techniques." 42 U.S.C.
§423(d)(3). It is not enough for a plaintiff to
establish that an impairment exists. It must be shown that
the impairment is severe enough to preclude the plaintiff
from engaging in substantial gainful activity. Gotshaw v.
Ribicoff, 307 F.2d 840 (7th Cir. 1962), cert. denied,
372 U.S. 945 (1963); Garcia v. Califano, 463 F.Supp.
1098 (N.D.Ill. 1979). It is well established that the burden
of proving entitlement to disability insurance benefits is on
the plaintiff. See Jeralds v. Richardson, 445 F.2d
36 (7th Cir. 1971); Kutchman v. Cohen, 425 F.2d 20
(7th Cir. 1970).
the foregoing framework, "[t]he question before [this
court] is whether the record as a whole contains substantial
evidence to support the [Commissioner's] findings."
Garfield v. Schweiker, 732 F.2d 605, 607 (7th Cir.
1984) citing Whitney v. Schweiker, 695 F.2d 784, 786
(7th Cir. 1982); 42 U.S.C. §405(g). "Substantial
evidence is defined as 'more than a mere scintilla. It
means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'"
Rhoderick v. Heckler, 737 F.2d 714, 715 (7th Cir.
1984) quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389,
401, 91 S.Ct. 1410, 1427 (1971); see Allen v.
Weinberger, 552 F.2d 781, 784 (7th Cir. 1977). "If
the record contains such support [it] must [be] affirmed, 42
U.S.C. §405(g), unless there has been an error of
law." Garfield, supra at 607; see
also Schnoll v. Harris, 636 F.2d 1146, 1150 (7th Cir.
present matter, after consideration of the entire record, the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) made the
1. Born on May 23, 1994, the claimant had not attained age 22
as of May 22, 2012 (20 CFR 404.102(c)(4) and 404.350(a)(5)).
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since May 22, 2012 (20 CFR 404.1571 et
seq., and 416.971 et seq.).
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments:
obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), anxiety panic disorder,
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), mood
disorder bipolar depression (Exhibits 4F, 5F, 8F, 11, F, 14F,
15F, 18F, 19F, 21F, 22F); and, reports of use of alcohol,
marijuana and “psychedelic mushrooms” (Exhibits
7F, 8F, 15F, 21F)(20 CFR 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)).
4. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals severity of one of
the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P,
Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525 and 416.926).
5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the
undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual
functional capacity to perform a full range of work at all
exertional levels but with the following nonexertional
limitations. These limitations include the inability to
tolerate fast-paced work or work requiring a regimented,
strict or rigid pace of production. In addition, there is a
limitation to only superficial interaction with supervisors,
coworkers, and the general public, defined as occasional and
casual contact with no prolonged conversations, and is
further defined in that contact with supervisors is short,
but allows for supervisors to give instructions absent any
exposure to intense or critical supervision. Finally, the
individual is bet suited to working alone, in semi-isolation
from others, or as part of a small group.
6. The claimant has no past relevant work (20 CFR 404.1565
7. The claimant was born on May 23, 1994, and was 6 years
old, as of alleged onset, and the individual attained age 18
on May 22, 2012 (i.e. the day prior to her
18thbirthday), which is defined as a younger
individual age 18-49, at attainment of age 18 (20 CFR
404.1563 and 416.963).
8. The claimant has at least a high school education and is
able to communicate in English (20 CFR 404.1564 and 416.964).
9. Transferability of job skills is not an issue because the
claimant does not have past relevant work (20 CFR ...