United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Middle Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ANNEMARIE CARNEY AXON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff
Quentince Jackson brings this action on behalf of her minor
child, Z.J. (“Claimant”), seeking judicial review
of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration (“Commissioner”), denying
her application for Supplemental Security Income
(“SSI”). (Doc. 1). Ms. Jackson argues that the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred by: (1)
failing to find that Claimant qualifies for listings 112.10
(“Autistic Disorder”) and 112.12
(“Attention Deficit Disorder”); (2) failing to
find that Claimant meets the functional equivalence of these
listings; (3) failing to accord proper weight to the report
and opinion of consulting psychologist Dr. Sizelove; (4)
failing to properly evaluate all of Claimant's medically
severe impairments in rendering its decision; and (5) failing
to support its denial of benefits with substantial evidence.
(Doc. 10). Because the ALJ did not state with particularity
the weight it gave to Dr. Sizelove's Psychological
Evaluation Report or the reasons why it may have discredited
his opinion, the court WILL REVERSE and
REMAND the Commissioner's decision for
further proceedings.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Z.J.
was seven years old at the time of the administrative hearing
and in the process of repeating the first grade. (R. at 15).
Ms. Jackson claims that her daughter became disabled due to:
“Autism Spectrum Disorder, Oppositional Defiant
Disorder, Persistent Depressive Disorder, Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder, Accommodative Esotropia, strabismus
(crossed eyes), and severe headaches.” (R. at 152).
Ms.
Jackson filed a Title XVI application for SSI on behalf of
Z.J. (R. at 165-68). The Social Security Administration
initially denied these claims. (R. at 104-07). Ms. Jackson
then filed a written request for a hearing (r. at 152-64),
which was granted. (See R. at 56). Thereafter, the
ALJ issued an opinion concluding Z.J. was not disabled as
defined under the Social Security Act and denied the
application for SSI. (R. at 39-50).
Ms.
Jackson, through her attorney, filed a timely request for
review of the ALJ's decision. (R. at 6-8). However, the
Appeals Council found no basis for changing the ALJ's
decision and denied Ms. Jackson's request. (R. at 1-3).
As a result, the decision of the Appeals Council became the
final decision of the Commissioner for purposes of appeal.
After
exhausting her administrative remedies, Ms. Jackson filed a
complaint with this court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§
405(g) and 1383(c)(3), seeking judicial review of the
ALJ's decision. (Doc. 1). The Commissioner answered on
February 26, 2018. (Doc. 8). Ms. Jackson filed a brief in
support of disability (doc. 10), and the Commissioner
responded with a brief in support of affirmance (doc. 11).
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under
42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a Social Security claimant may
obtain judicial review of the Commissioner's final
decision after exhausting all available administrative
remedies. On appeal, the court's role is to determine
whether the Commissioner's decision is based on
substantial evidence and the application of correct legal
standards. Davis v. Shalala, 985 F.2d 528, 531 (11th
Cir. 1993). The court “may not decide facts anew,
reweigh the evidence, or substitute [its] judgment for that
of the [Commissioner.]” Dyer v. Barnhart, 395
F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005). The Commissioner's
legal conclusions are reviewed de novo and “no
presumption of validity attaches to the Secretary's
determination of the proper legal standards to be applied in
evaluating claims.” Shalala, 985 F.2d at 531.
“If the court finds an error in the ALJ's
application of the law or that it fails to provide sufficient
reasoning to support its legal analysis, the ALJ's
decision must be reversed.” Ware v. Colvin,
997 F.Supp.2d 1212, 1216 (N.D. Ala. 2014) (citing
Cornelius v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1143, 1145-46 (11th
Cir. 1991)).
III.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The
Social Security Administration (“SSA”) applies a
three-step sequential evaluation when deciding whether a
child is eligible for SSI benefits. This evaluation involves
determining: (1) whether the child is engaged in
“substantial gainful activity;” (2) whether the
child suffers from a “medically determinable
impairment(s) that is severe;” and (3) whether the
child has an impairment or combination of impairments that
“causes marked and severe functional limitations [that]
meets or medically equals the severity of a set of criteria
for an impairment in the listings, or if it functionally
equals the listings.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.924. If a
claimant does not meet the threshold requirements of any
step, the ALJ will deny disability benefits.
A
medically determinable impairment “must result from
anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities
which can be shown by medically acceptable clinical and
laboratory diagnostic techniques.” Id. §
416.908. Moreover, such impairments “must be
established by medical evidence consisting of signs,
symptoms, and laboratory findings, not only by [a
claimant's] statement of symptoms.” Id.
To
establish that an impairment functionally equals a listing,
the child's impairment or combination of impairments must
result “in ‘marked' limitations in two
domains of functioning or an ‘extreme' limitation
in one domain.” Id. § 416.926a(a). A
“marked” limitation is defined as an impairment
that “seriously interferes” with a child's
“ability to independently initiate, sustain, or
complete activities.” Id. §
416.926a(e)(2)(i). The SSA describes an “extreme”
limitation as “more than marked” but “does
not necessarily mean a total lack or loss of ability to
function.” Id. § 416.926a(e)(3)(i). The
domains used by the SSA to determine whether a child's
impairment(s) functionally equal a listed impairment are: (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 yourself;” and (6) “health and
physical well-being.” Id. §
416.924a(b)(1)(i)-(vi).
IV.
...