The opinion of the court was delivered by: Glenn T. Suddaby, United States District Judge
Currently before the Court, in this Social Security action filed by Jennifer E. Griffin on behalf of her son, D.G. ("Plaintiff") against the Commissioner of Social Security ("Defendant" or "the Commissioner") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), are the parties' cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. (Dkt. Nos. 12, 14.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is granted, and Plaintiff's motion is denied.
D.G. was born on April 25, 2000. At the time of his hearing, he was in the third grade. D.G.'s alleged disability is attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ("ADHD"). Plaintiff also claims that D.G. shows symptoms of bipolar disorder.
On July 31, 2007, Plaintiff applied for Supplemental Security Income on D.G.'s behalf. Plaintiff's application was initially denied, after which she timely requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("the ALJ"). On April 3, 2009, Plaintiff and D.G. appeared before the ALJ. (T. 26-80.) The ALJ issued a written decision finding D.G. not disabled under the Social Security Act on May 29, 2009 (T. 14-25.) On February 17, 2011, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review, rendering the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. (T. 1-5.) Thereafter, Plaintiff timely sought judicial review in this Court.
Generally, in his decision, the ALJ made the following six findings of fact and conclusions of law. (T. 17-25.) First, the ALJ found that D.G. was a "school-age child" pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(g)(2) on July 31, 2007 (the date the application for benefits was filed), and on May 29, 2009 (the date of the ALJ's decision). (T. 17.) Second, the ALJ found that D.G. had not engaged in substantial gainful activity at any time. (Id.) Third, the ALJ found that D.G. suffers from ADHD, a severe impairment pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(c). (Id.) Fourth, the ALJ found that D.G. does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix I (the "Listings"). (Id.) Fifth, the ALJ found that D.G. does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that functionally equals an impairment set forth in the Listings. (T. 17-24.) Sixth, and finally, the ALJ concluded that D.G. has not been disabled, as defined by the Social Security Act, since July 31, 2007, the date his application was filed. (T. 25.)
II. THE PARTIES' BRIEFINGS
Generally, in support of her motion for judgment on the pleadings, Plaintiff makes two interrelated arguments. First, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in finding that D.G. had no marked or extreme limitations. (Dkt. No. 12 at 1, 7-10 [Pl.'s Mem. of Law].) Second, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in failing to properly credit Plaintiff's testimony and the treating physician's opinion. (Id.)
Generally, in support of his cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, Defendant argues that the ALJ properly decided that D.G.'s ADHD did not meet, medically equal, or functionally equal a ...