Mena obo CM v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:19-cv-06810
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 35
In Mena obo C.M. v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Netburn remanded the child’s SSI denial after finding errors in the disability analysis.
C.M. and Wilma Mena, who represented C.M. in the benefits application, are entitled to a new administrative review. The Commissioner of Social Security must reconsider the claim under the court’s instructions; the court did not determine whether benefits must ultimately be awarded.
What happened
In Mena obo C.M. v. Commissioner of Social Security, Wilma Mena sought review of the denial of Supplemental Security Income benefits for her minor child, C.M. The administrative law judge found that C.M.’s impairments did not meet the required disability standards.
Mena argued that the administrative law judge misapplied the standards for mental-health and intellectual impairments and improperly evaluated the evidence. The Commissioner argued that the denial was supported by the evidence.
Judge Sarah Netburn granted Mena’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and sent the matter back to the administrative law judge for further proceedings. The court did not decide that C.M. was entitled to benefits.
The detailed version
- Mena obo CM v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:19-cv-06810
- Sarah Netburn
- Mar. 31, 2021
Background
Wilma Mena applied for Supplemental Security Income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act on behalf of her minor child, C.M. The administrative law judge denied the application, and the Appeals Council declined review. The parties then filed competing motions for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to decide the case based on the pleadings and administrative record.
The record described C.M.’s behavioral, emotional, academic, and social difficulties. It included diagnoses and treatment related to adjustment disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, disruptive mood dysregulation disorder, conduct disorder, mood disorder, bipolar disorder, and other conditions. C.M.’s school records described substantial attendance, behavioral, and academic problems. An intelligence test produced a full-scale IQ score of 42, but the examiner repeatedly cautioned that the results should be interpreted carefully because C.M. appeared not to have put forth full effort.
Administrative Decision
The administrative law judge found that C.M. had several severe impairments but did not have an impairment that met or medically equaled a listed impairment. The judge also found that C.M. had less-than-marked limitations in acquiring and using information, attending and completing tasks, and caring for herself; a marked limitation in interacting and relating with others; and no limitation in moving about and manipulating objects or in health and physical well-being. The administrative law judge therefore found C.M. not disabled.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that the administrative law judge did not adequately apply Listing 112.04, which concerns depressive, bipolar, and related disorders. The administrative law judge discussed whether C.M. had the required extreme or marked limitations but did not clearly explain which criteria under paragraph A of the listing were being applied. The court found that the record could support a finding that C.M. satisfied the paragraph A(1) criteria for depressive disorder.
The court also found that the administrative law judge improperly treated the listing’s four areas of mental functioning as interchangeable with the six domains used to decide whether a child’s impairments functionally equal a listing. Although the categories overlap, they are not the same. The court concluded that the administrative law judge may have averaged or offset C.M.’s different abilities and limitations instead of considering the greatest degree of limitation within each mental-functioning area. Because the record could support a finding that C.M. met or medically equaled Listing 112.04 through paragraphs A(1) and B(1), the error was not harmless.
Regarding Listing 112.05, which concerns intellectual disorder, the court held that the administrative law judge was entitled to consider the examiner’s warnings about the reliability of the IQ score. But the court found that the record did not substantially support the administrative law judge’s apparent conclusion that C.M.’s IQ was above the listing’s relevant thresholds. The administrative law judge should have supplemented the record with evidence needed to evaluate C.M.’s intellectual abilities rather than substituting personal judgment for the available objective evidence.
The court declined to decide Mena’s remaining challenges to the six childhood-functioning domains because the required reconsideration on remand could change that analysis. It also cautioned that the administrative law judge should not rely selectively on evidence from C.M.’s earlier sixth-grade summer-school performance while overlooking evidence that her functioning later deteriorated.
Disposition
Judge Sarah Netburn granted Mena’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and remanded the matter to the administrative law judge for proceedings consistent with the opinion. The court did not award benefits or determine that C.M. was disabled; it required the agency to reconsider the relevant listing criteria, C.M.’s IQ evidence, and the record under the correct standards.
Read the full 35-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.