Allan J. D. v. Bisignano

Background

Allan J. D. brought the case on behalf of his minor son, K.A.D., seeking judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of K.A.D.’s application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The application alleged disability based on attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, asthma, autism, and problems with K.A.D.’s feet.

The Social Security Administration initially denied the application and denied it again on reconsideration. After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that K.A.D.’s learning disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, autism, and asthma were severe impairments. The ALJ nevertheless concluded that the impairments, individually or together, did not meet or medically or functionally equal a listed impairment. The ALJ found less-than-marked limitations in acquiring and using information, attending and completing tasks, and health and physical well-being, and no limitations in interacting and relating with others, moving about and manipulating objects, and caring for oneself. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung recommended affirming the Commissioner’s decision. Allan D. objected to that recommendation and moved for summary judgment. The Commissioner also moved for summary judgment.

Issue and arguments

Allan D. argued that the ALJ improperly applied 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a when assessing K.A.D.’s functional limitations. His argument focused primarily on the domains of acquiring and using information and attending and completing tasks. He contended that the ALJ improperly relied on K.A.D.’s functioning with assistance rather than evaluating what K.A.D. could do independently.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that judicial review of an SSI denial asks whether the ALJ committed legal error and whether substantial evidence supports the factual findings. Substantial evidence means relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support the conclusion. The court must consider evidence supporting and detracting from the ALJ’s decision, but it must affirm when the decision falls within the range of reasonable choices supported by the record.

For a child to qualify for SSI based on disability, the child must have a medically determinable impairment causing marked and severe functional limitations that has lasted or is expected to last at least one year. An ALJ evaluates six functional domains. Functional equivalence requires marked limitations in two domains or an extreme limitation in one domain.

The court rejected Allan D.’s interpretation that the ALJ had to base the assessment strictly on K.A.D.’s ability to perform activities without assistance. The regulations require consideration of how independently the child performs activities, but they also require consideration of how much extra help the child needs, along with the range of activities, pace, effort, and ability to sustain them. The court held that needing assistance does not, by itself, establish disability.

The court found that the ALJ applied the correct standard and considered the record, including K.A.D.’s individualized education program, assistance with schoolwork and staying on task, delayed language skills, response to attention-deficit/hyperactivity-disorder medication, school performance, and a teacher’s report that K.A.D. could complete classroom tasks independently. The court concluded that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Disposition

The court overruled Allan D.’s objection and adopted the Report and Recommendation in full. It denied Allan D.’s motion for summary judgment, granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the matter with prejudice. The court ordered judgment to be entered accordingly.