Zebley v. Heckler

• Decision Date: 16 July 1986
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 83-3314.
• Citation: 642 F. Supp. 220
• Parties: John ZEBLEY, et al. v. Margaret M. HECKLER (Bowen), Secretary of Health and Human Services.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

642 F. Supp. 220

John ZEBLEY, et al. v. Margaret M. HECKLER (Bowen), Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Civ. A. No. 83-3314.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

July 16, 1986.

Mark A. Kaufman, Chester, Pa., for plaintiff.

Joan K. Gardner, Asst. U.S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FULLAM, Chief Judge.

Persons in certain economic categories are entitled to supplemental security income ("SSI") under the Social Security Act if they are disabled. The statute defines disability as follows:

"An individual shall be considered to be disabled for purposes of this title if he is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment 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 (or, in the case of a child under the age of 18, if he suffers from any medically determinable physical or mental impairment of comparable severity)...." 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). (Emphasis added.)

Plaintiffs in this class action challenge the regulation which has been adopted by the Secretary for determining whether a child is disabled within this definition, 20 C.F.R. § 416.923, which provides:

"How we determine disability for a child under age 18.

We will find that a child under age 18 is disabled if he or she —

(a) is not doing any substantial gainful activity; and

(b) Has a medically determinable physical or mental impairment(s) which compare in severity to any impairment(s) which would make an adult (a person age 18 or over) disabled. This requirement will be met when the impairment(s) —

(1) Meets the duration requirement; and

(2) Is listed in Appendix 1 of Subpart P of Part 404 of this chapter; or

(3) Is determined by us to be medically equal to an impairment listed in Appendix 1 of Subpart P of Part 404 of this chapter.

It is common ground that, in evaluating an adult's disability, a five-step sequential analysis is used: (1) Is the claimant gainfully employed? (2) Is the claimed impairment sufficiently severe to significantly limit the claimant's physical or mental ability to do basic work? (3) Does the impairment meet the duration requirement, and is it listed in Appendix 1 or equal to a listed impairment? if so, the analysis stops at this point, and benefits are awarded (4) Does the claimant have sufficient residual functional capacity to perform his previous work? And (5) if not, does the claimant have residual functional capacity, considering his age, education and work experience, to engage in gainful employment? In the case of a child, however, only the first three steps in the analysis are followed (and the first step is virtually automatic).

The net result, according to plaintiffs, is that an adult claimant whose impairment is not of the prescribed severity or is not listed can nevertheless establish eligibility for benefits by showing that he lacks residual functional capacity for gainful employment. The contention is that Congress specified that children are eligible for SSI benefits if they suffer from a physical or mental impairment comparable to that which would prevent an...