Pizarro ex rel. A.P. v. Colvin
| Decision Date | 21 September 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-2644 |
| Citation | 208 F.Supp.3d 669 |
| Parties | Patria PIZARRO o/b/o A.P., Plaintiff v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Jonathan M. Stein, Community Legal Services, Inc., Robert J. Lukens, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.
Andrew C. Lynch, SSA/OGC Region 3, M. Jared Littman, Patricia M. Smith, Social Security Administration, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant.
Plaintiff Patria Pizarro ("Plaintiff"), on behalf of her minor grandson, "A.P." ("Claimant"), filed the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review of the final decision of Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Defendant"), which denied Claimant's application for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act ("the Act"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381 -1383f. The initial denial of SSI benefits was primarily based on the determination of an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") that Claimant did not have an impairment or combination of impairments which met, medically equaled, or functionally equaled the severity of any of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 ("the Appendix"). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Linda K. Caracappa for a Report and Recommendation ("R & R"). On April 29, 2016, Magistrate Judge Caracappa issued an R & R recommending that Plaintiff's request for review be denied. [ECF 15]. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed timely objections to the R & R, [ECF 16], to which Defendant filed a response in opposition. [ECF 19]. This matter is, therefore, ripe for disposition.
After a thorough review of the R & R, the administrative record, as well as the documents filed in connection with this civil action, this Court finds merit in Plaintiff's first objection and remands this matter to the Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order.
The factual and procedural backgrounds of this case is set forth in detail in the R & R and will be recited herein only as necessary to address the issues presented by Claimant's objections; to wit:
Claimant was born on February 17, 1998. (Tr. at 22).1 On April 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed an application for SSI on behalf of Claimant alleging an onset date of disability of August 17, 2010. (Tr. at 81). This application was initially denied on November 4, 2011. (Tr. at 91). Thereafter, Plaintiff requested a hearing before an ALJ, (Tr. at 95), which was held on October 17, 2013. (Tr. at 46). The issue before the ALJ was whether Claimant was disabled within the meaning of § 1614(a)(3)(C) of the Social Security Act. On November 8, 2013, the ALJ issued a decision finding that Claimant was not disabled. (Tr. at 16-35). Specifically, the ALJ found that Claimant, then 14 years old, suffered from the following severe impairments: depression, post-traumatic stress disorder
, and generalized anxiety disorder, (Tr. at 22), and that "none of Claimant's impairments, singularly or in combination, meets, medically equals or functionally equals the severity of one of the listed impairments necessary to be found disabled."2 (Tr. at 22). Plaintiff filed a request for review and, on March 4, 2014, the Appeals Council denied the request, which rendered the decision of the ALJ the final administrative decision of the Commissioner. (Tr. at 1). Plaintiff then appealed the final decision to this Court.
On April 29, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued the R & R, finding that the ALJ evaluated the record in accordance with the applicable legal standards and that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ's decision to deny Plaintiff's claim. [See ECF 15 at 29-30]
On May 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed four objections to the R & R. [ECF 16]. In her first objection, Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge erred when concluding that the ALJ's finding that Plaintiff's impairments did not meet or medically equal those in Listings 112.04 or 112.06 was legally sound. [See ECF 16 at 5-15]. Objections two through four contend that the Magistrate Judge erred in deferring to the ALJ's finding that Claimant did not have "marked" or "extreme" limitations in three of the six domains of functional equivalence listed in 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a. [See ECF 16 at 15-29].
The Social Security Act provides for judicial review of any "final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Review of a Commissioner's decision is, however, limited in scope. In reviewing a Commissioner's disability determination, the court may not independently weigh the evidence or substitute its own conclusions for those reached by the ALJ. Chandler v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. , 667 F.3d 356, 359 (3d Cir.2011) ; Burns v. Barnhart , 312 F.3d 113, 118 (3d Cir.2002). Instead, the court must review the factual findings of the ALJ in order to determine whether these findings are supported by substantial evidence. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) ; Rutherford v. Barnhart , 399 F.3d 546, 552 (3d Cir.2005).
Substantial evidence constitutes that which a "reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Rutherford , 399 F.3d at 552. "It is 'more than a mere scintilla but may be somewhat less than a preponderance of the evidence.' " Id. (quoting Ginsburg v. Richardson , 436 F.2d 1146, 1148 (3d Cir.1971) ). If the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence, the court may not set it aside "even if [the Court] would have decided the factual inquiry differently." Hartranft v. Apfel , 181 F.3d 358, 360 (3d Cir.1999).
When considering objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, a court must undertake a de novo review of the portions of the report and recommendation to which the plaintiff has objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ; Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Dominick D'Andrea, Inc. , 150 F.3d 245, 250 (3d Cir.1998). The court "may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
An individual under the age of 18 ("child") is considered disabled under the Social Security Act, if the child has a "physical or mental impairment
, which results in marked and severe 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). To determine or assess disability claims, federal regulations require the use of a three-step sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(a). Essentially, the three-step sequential evaluation process requires the following analysis:
If the claimant's impairment or combination of impairments satisfies the requirements of Step Three and has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period of 12 months, the claimant is disabled. Id. at § 416.924(d)(1).
As noted, at Step Three, an ALJ must first consider the severity of the claimant's impairment(s) and ascertain whether the impairment(s) meets or equals one of the impairments listed in the Appendix (hereinafter "the medical equivalence analysis"). Id. § 416.924(d)(1). An impairment meets a listed condition "only when it manifests the specific findings described in the set of medical criteria for that listed impairment." Robinson v. Sullivan, 733 F.Supp. 989, 992 (E.D.Pa.1990) (internal citations omitted). A medical equivalence can be found where a claimant has: (1) a listed impairment with medical findings that are at least of equal significance to the required criteria; (2) an impairment closely analogous to a listed impairment; or (3) a combination of impairments with medical findings of equal significance to the criteria of an analogous listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926(b)(i)–(iii).
If a claimant's impairment or combination of impairments meets or is medically equal to the severity of an impairment listed in the Appendix, the claimant is deemed disabled. Id. § 416.924(d)(1). However, if a claimant's impairment or combination of impairments does not meet or is not medically equal to a listed impairment in the Appendix, the ALJ must then determine if the claimant's impairment(s) is "functionally equal" to any of the listed impairments (hereinafter "the functional equivalence analysis"). Id. § 416.926a(a). In determining whether a child's impairment or impairments are functionally equivalent to the severity of any of the listed impairments, the ALJ must consider the extent to which the alleged impairment limits the child's ability to function in the following six life "domains:" "(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) health...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fernandez ex rel. I.F. v. Saul, CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-473
...and which . . . has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.'" Pizarro v. Colvin, 208 F. Supp. 3d 669, 672 (E.D. Pa. 2016) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(C)(i)). Federal regulations require the Commissioner to use a three-step sequential evalua......
- Harris v. Folino
-
Karstein v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
...spine impairment met the Listing by itself."). Indeed, fact-finding is "more appropriately reserved for the ALJ." Pizarro v. Colvin, 208 F. Supp. 3d 669, 675 (E.D. Pa. 2016) (remanding to the ALJ where step three analysis was conclusory). To be clear, the Court makes no findings as to wheth......
-
Smith v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin.
...step three analysis and noting that "fact-finding is 'more appropriately reserved for the ALJ'" (quoting Pizarro v. Colvin, 208 F. Supp. 3d 669, 675 (E.D. Pa. 2016)); Hemphill v. Massanari, No. 01-cv-1064, 2002 WL 32348348, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 5, 2002) (declining to "weigh the evidence in ......