Sharonda P. v. Kijakazi

• Decision Date: 13 March 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 1:20-cv-01581-AJB
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
• Parties: SHARONDA P., on behalf of T.P., Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, [1] Defendant.

SHARONDA P., on behalf of T.P., Plaintiff,
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, ^[1] Defendant.

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-01581-AJB

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division

March 13, 2022

ORDER AND OPINION^[2]

ALAN J. BAVERMAS UNTIED STALES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Sharonda P., on behalf of T.P. (“Plaintiff”), ^[3] brought this action pursuant to § 1631(c) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3), to obtain judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security

1

Administration (“the Commissioner”) denying his application for supplemental security income benefits (“SSI”).^[4] For the reasons set forth below, the Court AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff filed an application for SSI benefits on behalf of claimant T.P. on August 16, 2016, alleging disability commencing on July 27, 2016. [R202]. Plaintiff's applications were denied initially and on reconsideration. [R118-25; 130-139]. Plaintiff then requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). [R153-54]. An evidentiary hearing was held on March 7, 2019. [R59]. The ALJ issued a decision on June 3, 2019, denying Plaintiff's application on the

2

ground that T.P. had not been under a “disability” at any time through the date of the decision. [R53]. Plaintiff sought review by the Appeals Council, and the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review on February 12, 2020, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. [R1-9]. In her appeal to the Appeals Council, Plaintiff submitted additional evidence, including a neurodevelopmental evaluation of T.P. dated July 25, 2019, through August 1, 2019.^[5] [R2, 10-26]. The Appeals Council declined to consider this evidence on the ground that it did not relate to the period at issue, since the ALJ's disability determination was through the date of his decision on June 3, 2019. [R2].

Plaintiff then filed an action in this Court on April 13, 2020, seeking review of the Commissioner's decision. [Doc. 1]. The answer and transcript were filed on December 4, 2020. [Docs. 23, 24]. On April 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed a brief in support of her petition for review of the Commissioner's decision, [Doc. 35], and on May 19, 2021, the Commissioner filed a response in support of the decision, [Doc. 37]. Plaintiff also filed a reply brief on June 2, 2021, and a notice of supplemental authority on June 15, 2021. [Doc. 39]. The parties did not request

3

oral argument. [See Dkt]. The matter is now before the Court upon the administrative record, the parties' pleadings, the parties' briefs, and the parties' oral arguments, and it is accordingly ripe for review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3).

II. STANDARD FOR DETERMINING DISABILITY

“An individual under the age of 18 shall be considered disabled . . . if that individual has 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); accord 20 C.F.R. § 416.906. The individual who seeks Social Security disability benefits must prove that he or she is disabled. 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(H)(i) (rendering the provisions from 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5) applicable to SSI disability applications, which places burden on claimant to prove disability); see 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(a) (“In general, you have to prove to us that you are blind or disabled.”).

“Federal regulations set forth the process by which the [Social Security Administration] determines if a child is disabled and thereby eligible for disability benefits.” Shinn ex rel. Shinn v. Comm'r, 391 F.3d 1276, 1278-79 (11^th Cir. 2004). “The Commissioner uses a three-step analysis to make this determination.”

4

Turberville ex rel. Rowell v. Astrue, 316 Fed.Appx. 891, 892 (11^th Cir. Feb. 18, 2009). Under the regulations, this process begins at step one with the Commissioner determining whether the child is “doing substantial gainful activity.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(a). If the child is performing substantial gainful activity, the child is considered “not disabled” and is ineligible for benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(b).

If the child is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, the Commissioner next considers at step two whether the child's “physical or mental impairment(s)” alone or in combination with other impairments are severe. 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(a), (c). An impairment will be considered in a disability application only if it arises from “anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(D). Statements of nonmedical sources, such as “parents and other caregivers, ” teachers, and other school personnel may be used to determine the effects of the child's impairments on his or her functioning. 20 C.F.R. § 416.924a(a)(2). If the impairments are found not to be severe, the child is considered “not disabled” and is ineligible for benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(c).

If the child has a severe impairment or impairments, the Commissioner next assesses at step three whether the impairment or combination of impairments

5

“causes marked and severe functional limitations” for the child. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.911(b), 416.924(d). Limitations arising from pain and other symptoms count in this determination. 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(a) (“[The ALJ] will also evaluate any limitations in your functioning that result from your symptoms, including pain.”); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.924a(b)(2) (“[Y]our symptoms (such as pain, fatigue, decreased energy, or anxiety) may limit your functioning.”).

The Commissioner uses objective criteria listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (“C.F.R.”) to determine whether the impairment causes severe and marked limitations. Shinn ex rel. Shinn, 391 F.3d at 1278. “The C.F.R. contains a Listing of Impairments [“the Listings, ” found at 20 C.F.R. § 404 app.] specifying almost every sort of medical problem (“impairment”) from which a person can suffer, sorted into general categories.” Id. “For each impairment, the Listings discuss various limitations on a person's abilities that impairment may impose. Limitations appearing in these listings are considered ‘marked and severe.'” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 416.925(a)).

A child's impairment or combination of impairments will cause “marked and severe functional limitations” at step three if the impairment or combination of impairments “meet[s], medically equal[s], or functionally equal[s] the [L]istings.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.911(b)(1); see also §§ 416.902(h), 416.924(a). The impairment

6

“meets” a Listing if the child satisfies the criteria specified in the Listings for that child's severe impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.925(c)(3). The impairment “medically equals” a Listing if the child's impairment “is at least equal in severity and duration to the criteria of any listed impairment.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.926(a).

Finally, if the limitations resulting from a child's particular impairment are not comparable to those specified in the Listings, the Commissioner examines whether the impairment is “functionally equivalent” to those in the Listings. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(a); Shinn ex rel. Shinn, 391 F.3d at 1279. To make this determination, the Commissioner examines the degree to which the child's limitations interfere with the child's normal life activities. Shinn, id. The regulations specify six major domains of life:

(i) Acquiring and using information;

(ii) Attending and completing tasks;

(iii) Interacting and relating with others;

(iv) Moving about and manipulating objects;

(v) Caring for [one]self; and

(vi) Health and physical well-being.

20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(b)(1). The regulations also contain various “benchmarks” that children should have achieved by certain ages in each of these life domains.

7

See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.926a(g)-(1). A child's impairment is “of listing-level severity, ” and thus “functionally equals the listings, ” if as a result of the limitations stemming from that impairment the child has “‘marked' limitations in two of the domains [of the six major domains of life listed above], or an ‘extreme' limitation in one domain.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(d).

If the limitations stemming from a child's severe impairment meet, medically equal, or functionally equal the limitations specified in the Listings, the ALJ then examines whether the impairment “meets the duration requirement.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(a). An impairment meets this duration requirement if it “[is] expected to cause death or . . . has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.906; accord 20 C.F.R. § 416.909.

III. SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

A limited scope of judicial review applies to a denial of Social Security benefits by the Commissioner. Judicial review of the administrative decision addresses three questions: (1) whether the proper legal standards were applied;

(2) whether there was substantial evidence to support the findings of fact; and

(3) whether the findings of fact resolved the crucial issues. Washington v. Astrue, 558 F.Supp.2d 1287, 1296 (N.D.Ga. 2008); Fields v. Harris,

8

498 F.Supp. 478, 488 (N.D.Ga. 1980). This Court may not decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11^th Cir. 2005). If substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's factual findings and the Commissioner applies the proper legal standards, the Commissioner's findings are conclusive. Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1439-40 (11^th Cir. 1997); Barnes v....