Soto v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Norisha Ramos Soto brought the case on behalf of her minor child, A.A.R., under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking review of an administrative law judge’s decision denying the child’s application for Supplemental Security Income benefits. The administrative law judge found that A.A.R. had severe impairments—attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, a learning disability, and asthma—but that they did not meet, medically equal, or functionally equal a listed impairment. The Appeals Council denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision final for purposes of court review.

The Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings, which asks the court to decide the case based on the parties’ written submissions. Soto did not oppose the motion or request more time. The court nevertheless considered the Commissioner’s arguments on the merits rather than recommending judgment solely because Soto failed to respond.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the deferential substantial-evidence standard. Under that standard, the court asks whether relevant evidence supports the administrative law judge’s findings and whether the correct legal standards were used; it does not decide disability anew.

For a child to qualify for benefits, the child’s impairment must cause marked limitations in at least two functional areas or an extreme limitation in one. The six areas are 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.

The court found that the administrative law judge followed the required three-step process and applied the correct law. The court also found substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that A.A.R.’s impairments did not meet or medically equal a listed impairment. The record contained varying intelligence-test scores, but most were above the relevant threshold, and one evaluator stated that A.A.R. did not meet the criteria for intellectual disability. The record also showed that his asthma was controlled with an inhaler and had not required hospitalization or physician intervention of the type required by the asthma listing.

The court separately upheld the administrative law judge’s findings in each functional domain. The administrative law judge found less-than-marked limitations in acquiring and using information, attending and completing tasks, interacting and relating with others, caring for himself, and health and physical well-being, and no limitation in moving about and manipulating objects. The court cited evidence of academic and behavioral improvement, progress with medication and counseling, friendships and appropriate interactions, independent self-care, physical activity, normal or improved motor functioning, and controlled asthma. The court concluded that the record did not show an extreme limitation in any one domain or marked limitations in two domains.

Recommendation and Procedure

Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang recommended that Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be GRANTED. This is a Report and Recommendation addressed to District Judge Alison J. Nathan, not a statement in the opinion that Judge Nathan had already entered a final order. The parties were given fourteen days after receiving the report to file written objections, with additional time allowed for service by mail. The report states that failing to object within that period would waive objections and prevent appellate review.