Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brown v. Colvin

United States District Court, W.D. New York

April 14, 2015

TWYLA BROWN, o/b/o J.B., Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

DECISION and ORDER

MICHAEL A. TELESCA, District Judge.

I. Introduction

Represented by counsel, Twyla Brown ("Plaintiff") has brought this action on behalf of her infant son ("JB" or "Claimant") pursuant to Title XVI of the Social Security Act ("the Act"), seeking review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner") denying JB's application for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"). This Court has jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c).

II. Procedural Status

On March 12, 2009, Plaintiff protectively filed an application for SSI on behalf of JB, alleging an onset date of March 1, 2009. After the claim was denied, Plaintiff requested a hearing, which was held on February 16, 2011, in Buffalo, New York, before Administrative Law Judge William R. Pietz ("the ALJ"). T.33-51.[1] Plaintiff was represented by an attorney. The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision dated March 9, 2011. T.13-32. On September 4, 2012, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. This timely action followed.

III. Factual Background

On September 16, 2008, when JB was nine-years, ten-months-old, Plaintiff brought him to a psychiatric clinic due to his hyperactivity, oppositional behaviors, and occasional suicidal ideation. T.178, 312-18. Plaintiff related that JB had a history of aggressiveness toward his younger brother, hyperactivity, impulsiveness, lying, stealing food, and complaining of being hungry all the time. T.289. Plaintiff had to watch him constantly. He was in a 15-1-1 class, was disrespectful to his teachers, received poor grades, and had been suspended from school on several occasions. At the time, his Axis I diagnoses were Oppositional Defiant Disorder ("ODD") and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ("ADHD"). JB began participating in individual and family therapy and was prescribed medication. Treatment notes and academic evaluations throughout the relevant period indicate that JB consistently received violations at school due to his inappropriate behavior, was disruptive and inattentive in class, continued to steal and hoard food at home and was grossly overweight, would not bathe or wash himself despite reminders by his mother, and would act out and pick on his younger brother. T.290. The Court has reviewed the entire administrative transcript, including JB's medical, academic, and psychiatric records, and will discuss the evidence further below as necessary.

IV. Applicable Law

A. Standard of Review

A determination by the Commissioner that a claimant is not disabled will be set aside when the factual findings are not supported by "substantial evidence" or when the decision is based upon legal error. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). "Where the Commissioner's decision rests on adequate findings supported by evidence having rational probative force, " a reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner." Veino v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 578, 586 (2d Cir. 2002). However, this deferential standard is not applied to the Commissioner's application of the law. Townley v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 109, 112 (2d Cir. 1984). "Where there is a reasonable basis for doubt whether the ALJ applied correct legal principles, application of the substantial evidence standard to uphold a finding of no disability creates an unacceptable risk that a claimant will be deprived of the right to have [his] disability determination made according to the correct legal principles." Johnson v. Bowen, 817 F.2d 983, 986 (2d Cir. 1987).

B. Legal Standard for Disability Claims by Children

To qualify as disabled under the Act, a child under the age of eighteen must have "a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, which results in 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 12 months." 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(C)(I). By regulation, the Commissioner has promulgated a three-step analysis to determine whether a child is eligible for SSI benefits on the basis of a disability. Encarnacion ex rel. George v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 72, 75 (2d Cir. 2009) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.924, et seq.).

First, the ALJ determines whether the child is engaged in "substantial gainful activity." 20 C.F.R. § § 416.924(a), (b). Second, the ALJ considers whether the child has a "medically determinable impairment that is severe, " in that it causes "more than minimal functional limitations." Id., § 416.924(c). If a severe impairment is present, the ALJ must then consider whether the impairment "meets, medically equals, " or "functionally equals" a presumptively disabling condition listed in the regulatory "Listing of Impairments." Id., § 416.924(d); 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1.

The limitations caused by a child's severe impairment or combination of impairments are evaluated in the context of the following 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 oneself; and
(6) the child's health and physical well-being.

20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(b)(1). "For a child's impairment to functionally equal a listed impairment, the impairment must result in "marked" limitations in two domains of functioning or an "extreme" limitation in one domain.'" Encarnacion, 568 F.3d at 75 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(a)). An "extreme limitation" is an impairment which "interferes very seriously with [the claimant's] ability to independently initiate, sustain, or complete activities." 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(e)(3)(i). A "marked limitation" is an impairment that "interferes seriously with [the claimant's] ability to independently initiate, sustain, or complete activities." 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(e)(2)(i). "A marked limitation may arise when several activities or functions are impaired, or even when only one is impaired, as long as the degree of limitation is such as to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.