Jasmin B. v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Jasmin B. applied for child Supplemental Security Income benefits under the Social Security Act on behalf of her minor daughter, K.S. The application alleged disability based on speech delay, asthma, and gastrocnemius equinus. The Commissioner denied the application initially and again on reconsideration.

An administrative law judge held a hearing on June 10, 2022, at which Jasmin B. appeared with counsel and testified. On October 19, 2022, the administrative law judge denied benefits. The judge found that K.S. had severe impairments—meaning impairments causing more than minimal functional limitations—but that they did not meet or medically equal a listed impairment. The judge also found that the impairments did not functionally equal a listing, which would require either marked limitations in two areas of functioning or an extreme limitation in one area. The Appeals Council declined review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

Jasmin B. then filed this federal case. The opinion states that she proceeded without a lawyer in this action. After she did not file her own motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Commissioner filed a motion seeking judgment affirming the benefits denial. The court treated the Commissioner’s supporting brief as the motion despite the lack of a separate motion document.

Court’s review

The court reviewed the administrative decision under the Social Security Act. It could overturn the decision if the administrative law judge applied an incorrect legal standard or if the decision was not supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence means relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

For a child’s disability claim, the evaluation considers whether the child is working, has a severe impairment, and has an impairment that meets, medically equals, or functionally equals one of the listed impairments. Functional equivalence is evaluated across six areas: acquiring and using information; attending and completing tasks; interacting and relating with others; moving about and manipulating objects; caring for oneself; and health and physical well-being.

Application

The court examined the evidence supporting the administrative law judge’s findings in each area. It concluded that substantial evidence supported the finding of no limitation in acquiring and using information, relying on school information, medical opinions, an individualized education program, and Jasmin B.’s testimony. The court also found substantial evidence supporting the finding of no limitation in attending and completing tasks, including teacher assessments, medical opinions, educational records, and treatment records.

For interacting and relating with others, the administrative law judge found a less-than-marked limitation. The court cited K.S.’s positive relationships with peers, ability to communicate with classmates and teachers, teacher observations, and medical opinions. For moving about and manipulating objects, the administrative law judge also found a less-than-marked limitation. The court relied on evidence that K.S. could jump, balance, walk with prompting, dance, skip, participate in school physical activities, and perform age-appropriate gross-motor activities.

The administrative law judge found no limitation in caring for herself, and the court found substantial evidence supporting that conclusion. For health and physical well-being, the administrative law judge found a less-than-marked limitation, balancing K.S.’s need for asthma medication and foot supports against evidence that she could participate in gym class and was often observed moving about.

Jasmin B. submitted medical records concerning asthma treatment in October 2023 and March 2024. The court held that those records were not material to the period evaluated by the administrative law judge—February 2021 through October 2022—because they were not presented to the agency and did not establish the required connection to the earlier period. The court also noted that the records discussed providers whose evaluations from the relevant period were already part of the administrative record. The court therefore found no basis to send the case back for additional administrative proceedings.

Disposition

Judge Sarah L. Cave concluded that substantial evidence supported the finding that K.S. had not been disabled under the Social Security Act since February 17, 2021. The court granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, affirmed the Commissioner’s final decision for the period from February 17, 2021, through October 19, 2022, directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment, and closed the case. The court stated that the decision did not prevent a future application based on more recent records if K.S.’s impairments worsened or new impairments arose.