A.M.M. v. Kijakazi

Background

A.M.M., on behalf of her daughter and minor S.O., sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Administration’s final decision denying S.O.’s application for child Supplemental Security Income. A.M.M. moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule because there is no genuine dispute about a material fact. The Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings, which asks the court to rule based on the pleadings when the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that the administrative law judge’s denial of benefits was free of legal error and supported by substantial evidence. He recommended denying A.M.M.’s motion and granting the Commissioner’s motion. A.M.M. objected to that recommendation.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation and stated that it would adopt the recommendation even under the more searching standard of review that applies to specific objections. Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a court may set aside the Commissioner’s decision only if it is based on legal error or if its factual findings lack substantial evidence. Substantial evidence means evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support the conclusion.

For child SSI eligibility, the child must have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that causes marked and severe functional limitations and has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months. The Social Security Administration evaluates the claim through a three-step process, including whether the impairment meets, medically equals, or functionally equals a listed impairment. Functional equivalence is assessed in six domains: 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. Functional equivalence requires marked limitations in two domains or an extreme limitation in one domain.

The court rejected A.M.M.’s challenge to the administrative law judge’s findings that S.O. had less than marked limitations in acquiring and using information, attending and completing tasks, and interacting and relating with others. The court recognized evidence supporting A.M.M.’s position, including school and treatment records describing problems with written expression, mathematics, attention, completing tasks, impulse control, and social behavior. But it held that the administrative law judge reasonably relied on other evidence, including treatment records, provider observations, teacher assessments, and evaluations by non-examining consultants. That evidence described abilities such as intact memory, appropriate thought processes, fair attention and concentration, the ability to accomplish tasks, and age-appropriate or generally positive relationships.

The court also rejected A.M.M.’s challenge concerning Listing 112.15, which covers trauma- and stressor-related disorders. The listing requires satisfaction of specified requirements in Paragraph A and either Paragraph B or Paragraph C. Paragraph B requires an extreme limitation in one area of mental functioning or marked limitations in two areas. The administrative law judge found that S.O. had only moderate limitations in all four relevant areas: understanding, remembering, or applying information; interacting with others; concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace; and adapting or managing oneself. The court held that substantial evidence supported those findings.

Paragraph C requires a serious and persistent mental disorder, ongoing treatment or support that diminishes symptoms, and marginal adjustment, meaning minimal ability to adapt to changes or demands outside daily life. The administrative law judge found no evidence of the required highly structured environment or marginal adjustment. The court agreed, and noted that A.M.M. had not identified evidence contrary to that conclusion.

Disposition

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and overruled A.M.M.’s objections. It denied A.M.M.’s motion for summary judgment, granted Kijakazi’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and affirmed the Commissioner’s decision. The clerk was directed to close the two motions and the case.