Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_04-cv-06104/USCOURTS-arwd-6_04-cv-06104-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

GLORIA LUSTER o/b/o

ALEXIS LUSTER PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 04-6104

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, 

Commissioner, Social 

Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Factual and Procedural Background:

The plaintiff in this case, Gloria Luster (hereinafter "plaintiff"), has appealed the final

decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (hereinafter

"Commissioner"), denying her claim on behalf of her minor daughter, Alexis Luster (hereinafter

"claimant"), for supplemental security income (hereinafter "SSI") benefits under § 1602 of Title

XVI, 42 U.S.C. § 1381a. Each party has filed an appeal brief (Doc. #4 & 5), and this matter is

now ready for consideration. In this judicial review, the court must determine whether there is

substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the Commissioner's decision. 42

U.S.C. § 405(g).

The history of the administrative proceedings is contained in the appeal briefs and in the

ALJ’s written decision and will not be recounted here except as necessary. However, it should

be noted that plaintiff filed her application on November 26, 2001(T. 55-57). An

administrative hearing was held on August 8, 2003 (T. 27-36), after which the ALJ issued an

unfavorable decision date April 17, 2004 (T. 15-22). Plaintiff requested review of the hearing

decision, and by Order entered July 30, 2004, the Appeals Council denied the request (T. 7-9). 

Case 6:04-cv-06104-BES Document 7 Filed 09/16/05 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

The plaintiff asserts disability due to claimant’s diabetes mellitus and

anxiety/depression. The issue before this Court is whether the Commissioner's decision is

supported by substantial record evidence. 

The ALJ followed the new sequential evaluation process, set forth in 20 C.F.R. §

416.924. Under the new standard, a child must prove that she has a medically determinable

physical or mental impairment, which results in marked and severe functional limitations, and

which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a

continuous period of not less than twelve months. 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(c)(I); 20 C.F.R. §

416.906.

When passing the new law, as it relates to children seeking SSI disability benefits,

Congress decided that the sequential analysis should be limited to the first three steps. This is

made clear in the House conference report on the law, prior to enactment. Concerning

childhood SSI disability benefits, the report states: 

The conferees intend that only needy children with severe disabilities be eligible

for SSI, and the Listing of Impairments and other current disability

determination regulations as modified by these provisions properly reflect the

severity of disability contemplated by the new statutory definition.... The

conferees are also aware that SSA uses the term "severe" to often mean "other

than minor" in an initial screening procedure for disability determination and in

other places. The conferees, however, use the term "severe " in its common

sense meaning. 

142 Cong. Rec. H8829-92, 8913 (1996 WL 428614), H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104- 725 (July 30,

1996).

Consequently, under the new law, the analysis ends at step three with the determination

of whether the child's impairments meet or equal any of the listed impairments. More

Case 6:04-cv-06104-BES Document 7 Filed 09/16/05 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

specifically, a determination that a child is disabled requires the following three-step analysis. 

See 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(a). First, the ALJ must consider whether the child is engaged in

substantial gainful activity. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(b). If the child is so engaged, he or she

will not be awarded SSI benefits. See id. Second, the ALJ must consider whether the child has

a severe impairment. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(c). A severe impairment is an impairment that

is more than a slight abnormality. See id. Third, if the impairment is severe, the ALJ must

consider whether the impairment meets or is medically or functionally equal to a disability

listed in the Listing of Impairments, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (the

"Listings"). See 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(c). Only if the impairment is severe and meets or is

medically or functionally equal to a disability in the Listings will it constitute a disability within

the meaning of the Act. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(d). Under the third step, a child's

impairment is medically equal to a listed impairment if it is at least equal in severity and

duration to the medical criteria of the listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926(a). To determine

whether an impairment is functionally equal to a disability included in the Listings, the ALJ

must assess the child's developmental capacity in six specified domains. See 20 C.F.R. §

416.926a(b)(1). The six domains are: (1) acquiring and using information; (2) attending and

completing tasks; (3) interacting and relating with others; (4) moving about and manipulating

objects; (5) caring for yourself; and, (6) health and physical well-being. See 20 C.F.R. §

416.926a(b)(1).

If the child claiming SSI benefits has marked limitations in two categories or an

extreme limitation in one category, the child's impairment is functionally equal to a disability in

the Listings. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(b)(2). A marked limitation is an impairment that is

Case 6:04-cv-06104-BES Document 7 Filed 09/16/05 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-4-

"more than moderate" and "less than extreme." A marked limitation is one which seriously

interferes with a child’s ability to independently initiate, sustain, or complete activities. See 20

C.F.R. § 416.926a(e)(2). An extreme limitation is “more than marked”, and exists when a

child’s impairment(s) interferes very seriously with his or her ability to independently initiate,

sustain or complete activities. Day-to-day functioning may be very seriously limited when an

impairment(s) limits only one activity or when the interactive and cumulative effects of the

impairment(s) limit several activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(e)(3).

Discussion:

This court reviews a decision by an ALJ "to determine whether it is supported by

substantial evidence on the record as a whole." Bailey v. Apfel, 230 F.3d 1063, 1065 (8th

Cir.2000); 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Our scope of review is narrow; we must affirm the

Commissioner's decision so long as it conforms to the law and is supported by substantial

evidence on the record as a whole. Collins ex rel. Williams v. Barnhart 335 F.3d 726, 729 (8th

Cir.2003);Qualls v. Apfel, 158 F.3d 425, 427 (8th Cir.1998). Substantial evidence is relevant

evidence that reasonable minds might accept as adequate to support the decision. Hunt v.

Massanari, 250 F.3d 622, 623 (8th Cir.2001). The issue on appeal is whether there is

substantial evidence to support the ALJ's determinations under the three-step sequential test. 

The undersigned employs the same three-step sequential test as the ALJ to evaluate the

evidence and the alleged disability. Because plaintiff does not contest the ALJ's finding

regarding substantial gainful activity, we bypass the first step. Under the second step, we agree

that claimant’s impairments are severe. Consequently, the pivotal issue remains the third step,

namely, whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the finding that

Case 6:04-cv-06104-BES Document 7 Filed 09/16/05 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-5-

claimant’s impairments do not rise to the medical or functional level of severity necessary to

equal a disability listed in Appendix 1 of 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P. See Pepper ex rel.

Gardner v. Barnhart 342 F.3d 853, 855 (8th Cir.2003). 

The regulations provide:

(a) Basic considerations. We consider all relevant information (i.e., evidence)

in your case record. The evidence [] may include information from medical

sources, such as your pediatrician, other physicians, psychologist, or qualified

speech-language pathologist; other medical sources not listed in § 416.913(a),

such as physical, occupational, and rehabilitation therapists; and nonmedical

sources, such as your parents, teachers, and other people who know you. 

(1) Medical evidence -- (i) General. Medical evidence of your

impairment(s) must describe symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings. The

medical evidence may include, but is not limited to, formal testing that provides

information about your development or functioning in terms of standard

deviations, percentiles, percentages of delay, or age or grade equivalents. It may

also include opinions from medical sources about the nature and severity of your

impairments. (See § 416.927).

(ii) Test scores. We consider all of the relevant information in your case

record and will not consider any single piece of evidence in isolation. Therefore,

we will not rely on test scores alone when we decide whether you are disabled. 

(See § 416.926a(e)) for more information about how we consider test scores.

20 C.F.R. § 416.924a(a)(1)(i)-(ii). 

At the time of the administrative hearing, the claimant was 14 years old and was in the

eighth grade (T. 29). The plaintiff, claimant’s mother, testified at the hearing and was not

represented by counsel (T. 27). Plaintiff argues: the ALJ erred in proceeding with a hearing

despite the claimant’s failure to knowingly and intelligently waive her right to counsel; and,

erred in finding that the claimant was not markedly impaired in two domains, and therefore was

not disabled (Doc. 4, p. 2).

As has been noted, there are several ways to demonstrate that a child is disabled. 20

Case 6:04-cv-06104-BES Document 7 Filed 09/16/05 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-6-

C.F.R. § 416.926a(b). If the ALJ had found that the claimant had an extreme impairment in

one functional area or marked impairments in two functional areas, then she would have been

entitled to benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(d). 

Here, the ALJ assessed that the claimant has: no limitation in the domain of acquiring

and using information; no limitation in the domain of attending and completing tasks; no

limitation in the domain of interacting and relating to others; no limitation in the domain of

moving about and manipulating objects; no limitation in the area of caring for herself; and, a

less than marked limitation in the area of health and physical well being (T. 21). The ALJ’s

findings are supported by substantial evidence of record. 

Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ did not sufficiently question the claimant or claimant’s

representative in regard to all of claimant’s medical conditions, disabilities, limitations and

restrictions, and therefore, the record is incomplete. Further, she states:

This is a classic case where prejudice is likely to occur because the Claimant was

unable to retain legal representation. The proper and legal remedy in this case

would be to remand Claimant’s claim for an additional hearing to insure that the

Claimant has received a fair and impartial hearing.

(Doc. #4, p. 3). However, the record reveals that at the administrative hearing, the ALJ

specifically addressed this issue, noting that plaintiff did not have representation, and pointing

out that while representation was no necessary, she did have the right to representation, if she so

desired. Plaintiff acknowledged this right, and stated that she wished to go ahead with the

hearing without representation. There is no mention by plaintiff of an inability to obtain

representation (T. 27). 

Further, the record shows that on July 16, 2003, the plaintiff received a Notice of

Case 6:04-cv-06104-BES Document 7 Filed 09/16/05 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-7-

Hearing which clearly explains the right to counsel (T. 50-51). Wingert v. Bowen, 894 F.2d,

296, 298 (8th Cir.1990). Additionally, the record reflects that plaintiff appears to have

experienced no difficulty retaining counsel, to represent her before this court upon appeal. 

Thus, plaintiff’s contention with respect to this issue is without merit.

Plaintiff also asserts that the ALJ committed error in his findings in the six applicable

domains. The record contains numerous notations indicating that the claimant’s impairments

are controlled by medication (T. 102, 149, 148, 215, 217, 209, 208, 206, 198, 194, 188, 187,

234). Elsewhere in the record, it is reported that claimant’s grades are good/average, and she is

in regular classes (T. 98, 116, 29, 85, 215, 158, 210, 209, 205, 180). Documentation submitted

by plaintiff, in conjunction with her application indicates that claimant: needs glasses to see;

has no difficulty hearing or communicating; gets tired quickly and has to have her medication

and a snack nearby, when performing daily activities; has no limitations in understanding and

using what she has learned; can run, walk, dance and play some sports; although she has mood

changes, she has friends her own age, generally gets along with plaintiff, siblings, teachers and

other adults; can get to school on time, study and do homework, take her needed medication,

keep out of trouble and ask for help, when needed; has trouble with personal hygiene, washing

and putting away clothes, doing her chores, cooking, using public transportation on her own,

accepting criticism or correction, obeying rules and avoiding accidents; can complete

homework, but has difficulty staying on task in other areas; and, when at home, has difficulty

settling and rocks back and forth all the time (T. 89-96). 

The claimant was referred to Stepping Stone Clinic on or about August 17, 2001 (T.

181), due to frequent daydreaming, inattentiveness and her habit of rocking back and forth,

Case 6:04-cv-06104-BES Document 7 Filed 09/16/05 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-8-

when at home and seated (T. 180). She was evaluated by Rhonda Tannehill, Ph.D., who noted,

with respect to claimant’s behavior:

During the assessment session, Alexis displayed a moderate response style. 

When confronted with a statement she did not understand, she would ask for

clarifications. She remained on task and was talkative and friendly during most

of the session. At one point during the session, Alexis did cry and appeared

anxious but was unable to state why she was anxious.

Alexis was oriented x3. Her thought processes appeared to be logical and

coherent . She denied suicidal or homicidal ideations, delusions, hallucinations,

physical abuse, or sexual abuse. She does fear animals and will avoid being near

animals. However, she does help take care of the family parakeet. Alexis

indicated that her emotions at times feel as if she is on a “roller coaster.” She

can be very happy and then become very sad. Typically, she feels happy. Alexis

does daydream frequently. The daydreams are mostly about her future career. 

She wants to be a lawyer or a judge. Her reason is that she likes to argue. Her

preference is medical law or injury law. Alexis stated that she has difficulty

remaining on task. She is easily distracted particularly in Language Arts and

science. Alexis does not feel that she has many friends. She has three friends

with which she plays and talks. She stated that she does not get along well with

her parents. She has difficulty getting along with her siblings. When questioned

about her rocking, she stated that it was a habit. She rocks at home and in the

car but not at school. She is unable to control the rocking at home even when

she tries to make herself stop. While she rocks, she thinks and daydreams. The

rocking calms her and makes her happier.

Based on Alexis’ effort during the assessment session, the obtained results are

considered to be a valid estimate of her true personality traits. 

(T. 180-181). Dr. Tannehill summarized:

Alexis is a 12 year, 3 month old female referred for evaluation because of

continual rocking, daydreaming and inattention. Results of this assessment

indicate behavior difficulties in opposition, inattention, impulsivity,

hyperactivity, defiance, avoidance, anxiety, depression, shyness, perfectionism,

social problems, psychosomatic complaints, restlessness, [], emotional lability,

and cognitive inattention as rated by the mother. Behavior difficulties are

noted in anxiety, depression, social problems, thought problems, attention

problems, emotional problems, cognitive inattention, anger control problems,

hyperactivity, impulsivity, and aggression as rated by self. Adaptive behavior

difficulties are noted in self care, home living, social skills, community use,

Case 6:04-cv-06104-BES Document 7 Filed 09/16/05 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-9-

leisure skills, work skills, functional academics, health and safety skills, and selfdirection as rated by the mother. 

(T. 185). (emphasis supplied) The evaluation was completed in one and one half (11⁄2) hours,

during which the following tests were administered: Conners-Wells’ Adolescent Self-Report

Scale (CASS); Conners Parent Rating Scale-Revised (CPRS-R); Youth Self Report (YSR);

Behavior Dimension Scale (BDS); and Adaptive Behavior Evaluation Scale-Revised (ABES-R)

(T. 180-181).

The claimant’s seventh grade teacher, Diane Bramlett, submitted a completed School

Questionnaire dated February 4, 2002 (T. 81-84). Ms. Bramlett indicates that, at the time, she

had known the claimant for one and a half (11⁄2) years, and taught her for one and a half (11⁄2)

hours, Monday through Friday (T. 82). In Ms. Bramlett’s estimation, claimant had no

significant problems in: communication; social functioning; concentration, persistence and

pace; or, behavioral problems. There had been no worsening of the claimant’s functioning or

behavior (T. 82-83). There had been no interventions for the claimant’s behavior problems. 

Ms. Bramlett had no knowledge of claimant being coached by anyone, to obtain SSI benefits (T.

83-84). In conclusion, Ms. Bramlett observed “Alexis is a very well behaved student. She

leaves my room to check her blood sugar, if needed she eats the appropriate snack.” (T. 84). 

Plaintiff complained with respect to claimant’s vision, however, she was seen by Dr.

Chapman, O.D., on June 22, 2002, and he summarized, as follows:

Summary: refraction stable and ocular health normal (no signs of diabetic

retinopathy). Recommended evaluation with medical doctor for her blood sugar

instability. Annual visual examinations or as needed.

(T. 176). After a June 26, 2003 examination, he again referred to claimant’s reportedly unstable

Case 6:04-cv-06104-BES Document 7 Filed 09/16/05 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-10-

blood sugar levels, but found that her vision was “ok”, and although there had been a small

myopic increase in the right eye, the left eye remained the same. There was no evidence of

retinopathy, and all other evaluations were found to be normal (T. 222). 

After carefully examining the record, the undersigned concludes that the ALJ's

determinations are supported by substantial evidence in the record. There is ample evidence

that suggests that when claimant takes medication, her functioning greatly improves. When, for

whatever reason, she is non compliant with her medication, her conditions worsen (T. 199, 198,

197). Claimant has indicated that therapy has helped her with her depression, which is believed

to stem from her diabetic condition (T. 197). To the contrary, there is little evidence of an 

impairment or combination of impairments which seriously interferes (marked) with a the

claimant’s ability to independently initiate, sustain, or complete activities in two or more broad

areas of functioning, or which interferes very seriously (extreme) with her ability to

independently initiate, sustain or complete activities, in one domain. 

The record indicates that claimant’s anti-depressant medication has successfully and

significantly controlled her depression (T. 102, 215, 217, 209, 208, 206, 202, 198, 194, 188). If

an impairment can be controlled by treatment or medication, it cannot be considered disabling. 

Roth v. Shalala, 45 F.3d 279, 282 (8th Cir.1995); Stout v. Shalala, 988 F.2d 853, 855 (8th

Cir.1993). Furthermore, the ALJ properly focused on the claimant’s ability to function despite

her impairments, rather than on diagnoses. See Trenary v. Bowen, 898 F.2d 1361, 1364 (8th

Cir.1990). The undersigned concludes that the ALJ’s findings, specific to each of the six

domains, are supported by substantial evidence of record. 

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is found that the plaintiff’s arguments are

Case 6:04-cv-06104-BES Document 7 Filed 09/16/05 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-11-

without merit and, therefore, rejected.

Conclusion:

Accordingly, the undersigned concludes substantial evidence of record exists to support

the ALJ’s decision that the claimant’s impairments are neither medically nor functionally equal

to a listed impairment, and ultimately, that the claimant is not disabled. Therefore, it is

determined that the decision of the ALJ, denying benefits to the plaintiff on behalf of the

claimant, should be affirmed and the Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. 

ENTERED this 16 day of September, 2005. th 

/s/ Bobby E. Shepherd 

HONORABLE BOBBY E. SHEPHERD 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:04-cv-06104-BES Document 7 Filed 09/16/05 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>