United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
ALAN N. BLOCH, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 30th day of September, 2014, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 17) filed in the above-captioned matter on November 12, 2013,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said Motion is DENIED.
AND, further, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 12) filed in the above-captioned matter on September 12, 2013,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, Plaintiff's Motion is granted to the extent that it seeks a remand to the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") for further evaluation as set forth below and is denied in all other respects. Accordingly, this matter is hereby remanded to the Commissioner for further evaluation under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) in light of this Order.
On August 20, 2010, Plaintiff Candace Julian filed a claim for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1383f, on behalf of her minor son, "C.G." Plaintiff claimed that C.G. became disabled on February 1, 2006, due to severe Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ("ADHD"). (R. 45, 77).
After being denied initially on December 30, 2010, Plaintiff sought and obtained a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") on December 29, 2011. (R. 52, 304). In a decision dated January 24, 2012, the ALJ denied Plaintiff's request for benefits. (R. 18-31). The Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ's decision on March 22, 2013. (R. 4-6). Plaintiff filed a timely appeal with this Court, and the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
II. Standard of Review
Judicial review of a social security case is based upon the pleadings and the transcript of the record. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The scope of review is limited to determining whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards and whether the record, as a whole, contains substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's findings of fact. See Matthews v. Apfel , 239 F.3d 589, 592 (3d Cir. 2001) ("[t]he findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive") (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)); Schaudeck v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. , 181 F.3d 429, 431 (3d Cir. 1999) (noting that the court has plenary review of all legal issues, and reviews the administrative law judge's findings of fact to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence).
"Substantial evidence" is defined as "more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate" to support a conclusion. Plummer v. Apfel , 186 F.3d 422, 427 (3d Cir. 1999). However, a "single piece of evidence will not satisfy the substantiality test if the [Commissioner] ignores, or fails to resolve, a conflict created by countervailing evidence." Morales v. Apfel , 225 F.3d 310, 317 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Kent v. Schweiker , 710 F.2d 110, 114 (3d Cir. 1983)). "Nor is evidence substantial if it is overwhelmed by other evidence - particularly certain types of evidence (e.g., that offered by treating physicians) - or if it really constitutes not evidence but mere conclusion." Id. at 317. A disability is established when the claimant can demonstrate some medically determinable basis for an impairment that prevents him or her from engaging in any substantial gainful activity for a statutory twelve-month period. See Fargnoli v. Massanari , 247 F.3d 34, 38-39 (3d Cir. 2001). "A claimant is considered unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy....'" Id. at 39 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A)) (emphasis in original).
The Social Security Administration ("SSA") has promulgated regulations incorporating a three-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether an individual under the age of 18 is disabled as defined by the Act. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(a). At Step One, the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant is currently engaging in substantial gainful activity. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(a). If so, the disability claim will be denied. See id. If not, Step Two of the process requires the Commissioner to determine whether the claimant is suffering from a severe impairment. See id. In this context, a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments is not severe if it is a slight abnormality or a combination of slight abnormalities that cause no more than minimal functional limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(c). If the claimant fails to show that his or her impairments or combination of impairments are "severe, " he or she is ineligible for disability benefits. If the claimant does have a severe impairment, however, the Commissioner must proceed to Step Three and determine whether the claimant's impairment or combination of impairments meets, medically equals, or functionally equals the criteria for a listed impairment. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(a). "An impairment(s) causes marked and severe functional limitations if it meets or medically equals the severity of a set of criteria for an impairment in the listings, or if it functionally equals the listings." 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(d). In determining whether an impairment or combination of impairments functionally equals the listings, an ALJ must assess the claimant's functioning in six different domains. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(b)(1). If the claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets, medically equals the severity of, or functionally equals the listings, and the impairment(s) has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months, he or she is presumed disabled. Id . If the impairment(s) does not meet the duration requirement, or does not meet, medically equal, or functionally equal the listings, then the claimant is not disabled. Id.
III. The ALJ's Decision
In the present case, the ALJ found that C.G. was a school-age child on August 20, 2010, the protective filing date. (R. 21). The ALJ then proceeded to apply the sequential evaluation process when reviewing the claim for benefits. In particular, the ALJ found that C.G. had not been engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset of disability. (R. 21). The ALJ also found that C.G. had the following severe impairments: an attention deficit ...