Arletha B. v. Saul

Background

Arletha B. brought the case on behalf of her daughter, L.R.C., seeking review of the Social Security Administration’s final decision denying L.R.C.’s application for supplemental security income benefits. The application alleged disability beginning March 20, 2014, based on asthma, delayed milestones, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, receptive and expressive language impairment, anemia, and hearing problems.

After a hearing, administrative law judge Virginia Kuhn found that L.R.C. had severe impairments including asthma, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, a language disorder, and specific learning disorders in reading, writing, and mathematics. The administrative law judge found less-than-marked limitations in acquiring and using information, attending and completing tasks, interacting and relating with others, and moving about and manipulating objects; a marked limitation in caring for herself; and no limitation in health and physical well-being. The administrative law judge concluded that L.R.C.’s impairments did not meet, medically equal, or functionally equal a listed impairment. The Appeals Council declined review, making that decision final.

Arguments and standard of review

Arletha B. asked the district court to reverse or remand the decision for three principal reasons: the administrative law judge should have found a marked or extreme limitation in interacting and relating with others; the administrative law judge failed to fully develop the record by not obtaining school records concerning an individualized education plan; and the administrative law judge should have found an extreme limitation in caring for herself.

The court reviewed whether substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s decision and whether the decision resulted from an error of law. Substantial evidence means enough evidence that a reasonable person could find it adequate to support the decision. The court considered evidence supporting and opposing the decision but could not replace the administrative law judge’s factual findings with its own.

Interacting and relating with others

The court held that substantial evidence supported the finding of a less-than-marked limitation in interacting and relating with others. The record included evidence of aggression, inappropriate touching, poor boundaries, behavioral problems, and difficulty following directions. But it also included evidence that L.R.C. enjoyed being with peers, greeted them warmly, was friendly and cooperative, attempted to make new relationships, and showed resilience and adaptability.

The court concluded that the administrative law judge adequately considered the evidence, even though some incidents were discussed generally in that section of the decision. The court also upheld the administrative law judge’s evaluation of the medical opinions. The administrative law judge gave little weight to Dr. Claudia Campo’s opinion because Dr. Campo had seen L.R.C. once before completing the opinion and the opinion was inconsistent with other records, including observations that L.R.C. was friendly, pleasant, cooperative, and had fair social skills. The court likewise found sufficient support for giving little weight to nurse practitioner Mary Johnston’s opinion because the opinion was general, did not identify specific objective evidence or testing, and conflicted with other evidence. The court upheld the significant weight given to the testimony of medical expert Dr. Karen Butler, who reviewed the longitudinal record and concluded that the relevant limitations were less than marked or moderate, except for a marked limitation in caring for herself.

Development of the record and school records

The court rejected the argument that the administrative law judge failed to develop the record by not obtaining school records or an individualized education plan. The administrative law judge expressly found that L.R.C. did not have an individualized education plan or receive special education classes. The court found substantial evidence supporting that finding, including records stating that L.R.C. did not have an individualized education plan and was only being evaluated for special education eligibility.

The court further held that, even if the evidence about a possible plan was viewed as conflicting, the administrative law judge was responsible for resolving conflicts in the evidence. Remand was also unwarranted because Arletha B. did not identify what the alleged plan contained or explain how its absence caused unfairness or prejudice.

Caring for herself

The court also upheld the finding of a marked, rather than extreme, limitation in caring for herself. The administrative law judge considered L.R.C.’s behavioral incidents and destructive conduct but also considered evidence that medication reduced her aggression and irritability without side effects, that a later assessment did not diagnose attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and that L.R.C. did not have an individualized education plan or receive special education services. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s finding.

Disposition

The court ordered that Arletha B.’s motion for summary judgment be denied, Andrew Saul’s motion for summary judgment be granted, and the case be dismissed with prejudice. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.