United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
MARQUIS A. DAVIS, Plaintiff,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
P. Rodovich United States Magistrate Judge
matter is before the court on petition for judicial review of
the decision of the Commissioner filed by the plaintiff,
Marquis A. Davis, on September 15, 2017. For the following
reasons, the decision of the Commissioner is
plaintiff, Marquis A. Davis, filed applications for Child
Disability Insurance Benefits on November 4, 2013, and
Supplemental Security Income on October 25, 2013, alleging a
disability onset date of July 28, 1995. (Tr. 9). The
Disability Determination Bureau denied Davis'
applications on February 6, 2014, and again upon
reconsideration on May 7, 2014. (Tr. 9). Davis subsequently
filed a timely request for a hearing on July 2, 2014. (Tr.
9). A hearing was held on May 11, 2016, before Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) Robert M. Senander, and the ALJ issued an
unfavorable decision on June 8, 2016. (Tr. 9-22). Vocational
Expert (VE) Lee O. Knutson and Medical Expert (ME) Michael C.
Rabin, PhD testified at the hearing. (Tr. 9). The Appeals
Council denied review, making the ALJ's decision the
final decision of the Commissioner. (Tr. 1-6).
Davis alleged an onset date of July 28, 1995, the period of
consideration before the ALJ began on the day before
Davis' 18th birthday, July 27, 2013, for the
Title II application and October 25, 2013, regarding the
Title XVI application. (Tr. 9). To be entitled to child's
insurance benefits, an individual must have a disability that
began before attainment of age 22. (Tr. 9).
one of the five-step sequential analysis for determining
whether an individual is disabled, the ALJ found that Davis
had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since July
28, 1995, the alleged onset date. (Tr. 12).
two, the ALJ determined that Davis had the following severe
impairments: asthma, borderline intellectual functioning,
specific learning disorder (reading and math), and depression
disorder NOS. (Tr. 12). The ALJ determined that Davis'
physical impairments, considered singly and in combination,
more than minimally limited his ability to perform basic work
activities. (Tr. 13). Additionally, the ALJ found that in
assessing Davis' mental impairments, he had a moderate
limitation in at least one broad area of functioning. (Tr.
13). Thus, the ALJ concluded that Davis' physical and
mental limitations were severe impairments. (Tr. 13).
three, the ALJ concluded that Davis did not have an
impairment or combination of impairments that met or
medically equaled the severity of one of the listed
impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.
(Tr. 14). The ALJ considered Davis' impairments against
the following criteria: Listing 3.03, asthma; Listing 12.04,
affective disorders; and Listing 12.05, borderline
intellectual functioning. (Tr. 14). The ALJ indicated that
neither Davis' treating or examining physicians, nor the
State agency medical consultants indicated findings that
would satisfy the severity of a listed impairment. (Tr. 14).
Davis' asthma, the ALJ determined that although Davis had
some difficulty breathing after exertion and that he
regularly used his albuterol and inhaler, he was able to
manage his asthma well and did not require physician
intervention. (Tr. 14). Therefore, the ALJ concluded that the
criteria of Listing 3.03 was not met. (Tr. 14).
in finding that Davis did not meet Listing 12.04, the ALJ
considered the paragraph B criteria for mental impairments
which required at least two of the following:
marked restriction of activities of daily living; marked
difficulties in maintaining social functioning; marked
difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence, or
pace; or repeated episodes of decompensation, each of
(Tr. 14). The ALJ defined a marked limitation as more than
moderate but less than extreme and repeated episodes of
decompensation, each of extended duration, as three episodes
within one year or once every four months with each episode
lasting at least two weeks. (Tr. 14).
determined that Davis had a moderate restriction in
activities of daily living, a mild restriction in social
functioning, and a moderate restriction in concentration,
persistence, or pace. (Tr. 14-15). However, Davis had not
experienced any episodes of decompensation. (Tr. 14). Because
Davis did not have two marked limitations or one marked
limitation and repeated episodes of decompensation, the ALJ
determined that he did not satisfy the paragraph B criteria.
(Tr. 15). Additionally, the ALJ found that Davis did not
satisfy the paragraph C criteria. (Tr. 15).
the ALJ considered Davis' borderline intellectual
functioning under the requirements of Listing 12.05. (Tr.
15). Intellectual disability refers to significantly
subaverage general intellectual functioning with deficits in
adaptive functioning initially manifested during the
developmental period; i.e, the evidence demonstrates
or supports onset of the impairment before age 22. (Tr. 15).
The ALJ indicated that Davis was able to manage his own
personal care and perform household chores. (Tr. 15).
Additionally, prior to the relevant period Davis underwent
cognitive testing and achieved a full-scale IQ score of 72.
(Tr. 15). Thus, based on those findings, the ALJ concluded
that Davis' borderline intellectual functioning did not
meet the criteria set forth in Listing 12.05. (Tr. 15).
consideration of the entire record, the ALJ then assessed
Davis' residual ...