Torres v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Darlene Torres brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which permits judicial review of a final Social Security decision. She sought review of the decision that her minor child, C.K.C., was not disabled under the Social Security Act from August 27, 2016, through June 29, 2020. C.K.C. had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and anxiety disorder. The administrative law judge also considered a Baker’s cyst, low body mass index, and heart murmur, but found those conditions nonsevere.

The administrative law judge found that C.K.C.’s mental impairments were severe but did not meet or equal a listed impairment. He also found that they did not functionally equal a listed impairment because C.K.C. had less than marked limitations in attending and completing tasks, interacting and relating with others, and moving about and manipulating objects, and no limitation in acquiring and using information, caring for himself, or health and physical well-being.

Torres argued that the administrative law judge failed to develop the record by obtaining statements from treating physicians and a functional assessment from a teacher. She also argued that he improperly weighed or ignored evidence and failed to address whether C.K.C.’s low body mass index medically equaled the requirements for a growth-disorder listing. Torres was initially self-represented in the federal case and was represented by counsel by the time the parties sought judgment on the pleadings.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that an administrative law judge has a duty to develop the record, with a heightened duty when a claimant is unrepresented. The court nevertheless found no violation here. The administrative record contained treatment and school records covering October 2017 through January 2020, with no obvious gaps. The court held that the available records were sufficient to evaluate C.K.C.’s limitations, even without formal medical-source statements from Dr. Gault or Dr. Trelles-Thorne or a separate teacher assessment.

The court also held that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s decision. “Substantial evidence” means more than a minimal amount of evidence. The record included C.K.C.’s academic performance, testing showing average or above-average functioning in several areas, regular-class placement, generally normal examinations, appropriate social behavior in several settings, and improved attention and impulse control with medication. The court rejected Torres’s argument that the administrative law judge improperly selected only favorable evidence, explaining that the judge was permitted to evaluate the record as a whole.

The court further concluded that the administrative law judge adequately considered evidence concerning attention and concentration, including a report noting weaker sustained attention without medication but average selective attention with medication. The court also found that school accommodations or an individualized education program did not necessarily establish disability under the Social Security Act, because school-support standards differ from the statutory disability standard.

Finally, the court rejected Torres’s medical-equivalence argument concerning C.K.C.’s low body mass index and Listing 105.08, a growth-disorder listing. The court stated that equivalence required medical findings matching the severity of all the listing’s criteria, including the specified evidence of chronic nutritional deficiency. The record instead showed generally normal physical findings and repeated descriptions of C.K.C. as well-developed, well-nourished, or well-appearing.

Disposition

The court held that the administrative law judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the alleged errors did not require a remand. The court denied Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted Defendant’s cross-motion. Judge Katharine H. Parker therefore upheld the denial of C.K.C.’s child Supplemental Security Income benefits.