Maldonado v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-08074
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Maldonado v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Netburn ordered the Commissioner to explain why the case should not be sent back over apparently outdated disability criteria.
The order directly affected Elizabeth S. Maldonado, her minor child identified as N.L.M.B., and the Commissioner of Social Security. It required the Commissioner to explain why the case should not be remanded.
What happened
In Maldonado v. Commissioner of Social Security, Elizabeth S. Maldonado applied for supplemental security income on behalf of her minor child. The application was denied in a decision issued on October 17, 2018.
The order said the administrative law judge appeared to use older medical criteria when evaluating the child’s asthma, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and tic disorder. The Social Security Administration had revised the relevant criteria before the decision was issued.
Judge Sarah Netburn ordered the Commissioner to explain by February 1, 2021, why the case should not be sent back because the administrative law judge may have failed to apply the effective criteria. The order did not itself remand the case or decide whether the child was eligible for benefits.
The detailed version
- Maldonado v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:19-cv-08074
- Edgardo Ramos
- Jan. 27, 2021
Background
Elizabeth S. Maldonado applied for supplemental security income on behalf of her minor child on February 11, 2016. The Social Security Administration issued a decision on October 17, 2018. The opinion identifies the child by the initials N.L.M.B.
Between the application and the decision, the Social Security Administration revised the medical criteria in Listing 103.03, concerning asthma, and Listing 112.11, concerning certain neurodevelopmental disorders. The order states that the revised criteria became effective before the administrative law judge issued the decision.
Potential use of outdated criteria
The administrative law judge found that N.L.M.B.’s asthma was not sufficiently severe under Listing 103.03 because she did not have the required attacks, persistent low-grade wheezing, or growth impairment. The order said this language appeared to come from the prior version of the listing, which used different requirements concerning hospitalizations and symptoms.
The administrative law judge also found that N.L.M.B. did not meet Listing 112.11 for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder because she lacked marked inattention, impulsiveness, and hyperactivity with other age-related criteria. The judge further stated that there was no specific listing for the child’s tic disorder. The order noted that the revised Listing 112.11 changed the listing’s title to “Neurodevelopmental Disorders” and added tic disorders with specified symptoms and signs.
The order also quoted Social Security Administration statements that the revised rules would apply to claims pending on or after their effective dates and that federal courts would review final decisions under the rules in effect when the decisions were issued.
Court’s action
Judge Sarah Netburn directed the Commissioner to advise the court by February 1, 2021, why the case should not be remanded because the administrative law judge failed to apply the effective versions of Listings 103.03 and 112.11. The order did not itself grant or deny benefits, enter a remand, or decide the merits of the child’s disability claim. The clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to the plaintiff.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.