Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_15-cv-00209/USCOURTS-ared-4_15-cv-00209-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 865
Nature of Suit: Social Security - RSI (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:0405 Review of HHS Decision

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

Tashian Polk Plaintiff

o/b/o K.J.P.

No. 4:15-CV-00209 JM-JTR

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner, Defendant

Social Security Administration

Recommended Disposition

Instructions

The following recommended disposition was prepared for U.S. District Judge

James M. Moody, Jr. A party to this dispute may file written objections to this

recommendation. An objection must be specific and state the factual and/or legal

basis for the objection. An objection to a factual finding must identify the finding and

the evidence supporting the objection. Objections must be filed with the clerk of the

court no later than 14 days from the date of this recommendation.1

 The objecting

party must serve the opposing party with a copy of an objection. Failing to object

within 14 days waives the right to appeal questions of fact.2

 If no objections are filed,

Judge Moody may adopt the recommended disposition without independently

1

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

2

Griffini v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1994) (failure to file objections

waives right to de novo review and to appeal magistrate judge’s findings of fact).

Case 4:15-cv-00209-JM Document 10 Filed 05/04/16 Page 1 of 10
reviewing all of the record evidence.

Reasoning for Recommended Disposition

Tashian Polk appeals the denial of her second application for child

supplemental security income (SSI) for her son K.J.P.3

 Polk claims K.J.P. has been

disabled since birth, but heart surgery triggered the application. Polk based disability

on heart surgery, speech problems, a drooping left eye lid, bowel problems, and

pancreatitis.4

 To receive SSI, Polk must prove K.J.P. was disabled as of, or after,

applying for SSI;5

 that is, she must prove K.J.P. was disabled as of, or after, July 6,

2011, when K.J.P. was age 4 years, 7 months.

The Commissioner’s decision. After considering the application, the

Commissioner’s ALJ identified language disorder and cleft mitral valve defect-post

repair as severe impairments.6

 The ALJ determined K.J.P. lacked an “extreme”

limitation in one of six specified functional domains, or a “marked” limitation in at

3

SSA record at p. 126 (applying on July 6, 2011 and alleging disability

beginning Dec. 12, 2006); id. at p. 143 (indicating that prior application was denied

on Nov. 7, 2007).

4

Id. at p. 146.

5

20 C.F.R. § 416.335; Cruse v. Bowen, 867 F.2d 1183, 1185 (8th Cir. 1989)

(claimant must prove she was disabled as of or subsequent to the protective filing date

of application).

6

SSA record at p. 15.

2

Case 4:15-cv-00209-JM Document 10 Filed 05/04/16 Page 2 of 10
least two domains. Relevant to this review, the ALJ determined K.J.P. has a less than

marked limitation in the domains of interacting and relating to others, and health and

physical well-being.7

 The ALJ concluded that K.J.P. was not disabled and denied the

application.8

After the Commissioner’s Appeals Council denied a request for review,9 the

ALJ’s decision became a final decision for judicial review.10 Polk filed this case to

challenge the decision.11 In reviewing the decision, the court must determine whether

substantial evidence supports the decision and whether the ALJ made a legal error.12

This recommendation explains why substantial evidence supports the decision and

why the ALJ made no legal error.

7

Id. at pp. 20 & 22.

8

Id. at p. 22.

9

Id. at p. 1.

10See Anderson v. Sullivan, 959 F.2d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1992) (stating, “the

Social Security Act precludes general federal subject matter jurisdiction until

administrative remedies have been exhausted” and explaining that the Commissioner’s

appeal procedure permits claimants to appeal only final decisions).

11Docket entry # 1.

12See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (requiring the district court to determine whether the

Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the

Commissioner conformed with applicable regulations); Long v. Chater, 108 F.3d 185,

187 (8th Cir. 1997) (explaining that the court will uphold the decision if it lacks legal

error and is supported by substantial evidence).

3

Case 4:15-cv-00209-JM Document 10 Filed 05/04/16 Page 3 of 10
Polk’s argument. Polk contends K.J.P. has marked limitations in interacting

and relating to others, and in health and physical well-being. She says the ALJ erred

by determining otherwise. She complains about the ALJ’s reliance on K.J.P.’s

academic record. For these reasons, she contends substantial evidence does not

support the ALJ’s decision.13

Applicable legal principles. At step three of the disability-determination

process, the ALJ must determine whether a child’s impairment meets or medically

equals the severity requirements for a listed impairment.14 K.J.P.’s impairments are

not severe enough to meet or medically equal a listed impairment, but he might

functionally equal the listing. To functionally meet the listing, his impairments must

cause an “extreme” limitation in one domain or a “marked” limitation in at least two

domains.15 A marked limitation exists if the child’s impairments seriously interfere

with his ability to independently initiate, sustain, or complete activities.16 The

domains at issue are: (1) interacting and relating to others, and (2) health and wellbeing.

13Docket entry # 8.

1420 C.F.R. § 416.924(d).

1520 C.F.R. § 416.926a(a).

1620 C.F.R. § 416.926a(e)(2).

4

Case 4:15-cv-00209-JM Document 10 Filed 05/04/16 Page 4 of 10
The evidence supports a less than marked limitation in interacting and

relating to others. The domain of interacting and relating to others considers how

a child initiates and sustains emotional connections with others, develops and uses the

language of his community, cooperates with others, complies with rules, responds to

criticism, and respects and takes care of the possessions of others.17 A pre-school

child like K.J.P. should do the following:

(1) socialize with children as well as adults,

(2) begin to prefer playmates the same age and start to develop

friendships with children of the same age,

(3) use words instead of actions to express himself,

(4) be better able to share, show affection, and offer to help,

(5) relate to caregivers with increasing independence,

(6) choose his friends,

(7) play cooperatively with other children, one-at-a-time or in a group,

without continual adult supervision,

(8) initiate and participate in conversations, using increasingly complex

vocabulary and grammar, and

(9) speaking clearly enough that both familiar and unfamiliar listeners

can understand what’s said most of the time.18

1720 C.F.R § 416.926a(i).

18Id.

5

Case 4:15-cv-00209-JM Document 10 Filed 05/04/16 Page 5 of 10
K.J.P.’s language disorder implicates items 8 and 9, but Polk proved no marked

limitation.

A speech-language pathologist identified a severe delay in K.J.P.’s articulation

skills at age 3 years, 10 months. According to the speech-language pathologist, the

delay interfered with the ability of others to understand K.J.P.’s speech.19 The speechlanguage pathologist recommended speech therapy focusing on increasing speech

intelligibility and receptive/expressive language skills.20

Nine months later, at age 4 years, 8 months, K.J.P.’s speech therapist reported

a serious problem using adequate vocabulary and grammar in expression, but no

problems in playing with other children, expressing anger appropriately, and

respecting adults in authority; and a slight problem making friends, seeking attention

appropriately, and following rules.21 The therapist could understand most of K.J.P.’s

speech.22 The therapist’s report identifies difficulty speaking intelligibly as a

limitation, but it does not show language disorder seriously interfered with K.J.P.’s

ability to independently initiate, sustain, or complete activities. The report weighs

19SSA record at p. 393.

20Id. at p. 394.

21Id. at p. 179.

22Id. at p. 181.

6

Case 4:15-cv-00209-JM Document 10 Filed 05/04/16 Page 6 of 10
against a marked limitation because it showed K.J.P. played with children his age,

developed friendships with children, used words instead of actions to express himself,

and related to his care-givers.

By age 6 years, 4 months, K.J.P.’s school reported developmental progress. 

K.J.P. had friends at school, exhibited an age appropriate level of independence,

worked with peers, waited to take turns, spoke in complete sentences, but he had

weaknesses in identifying and producing rhyming words and blending and segmenting

sounds in spoken words.23 Difficulty producing certain sounds negatively affected

K.J.P.’s ability to be easily understood by others.24 Diagnostic testing classified his

language delay as severe, but according to Polk, K.J.P.’s speech had improved.25 This

evidence shows K.J.P. was limited in the domain of interacting and relating to others

because he had difficulty speaking intelligibly, but it does not show language disorder

seriously interfered with his ability to independently initiate, sustain, or complete

activities. The evidence shows no marked limitation.

The evidence shows no marked limitation in health and physical wellbeing. The domain of health and physical well-being considers the cumulative effects

23Id. at p. 510.

24Id. at p. 512.

25Id. at p. 510.

7

Case 4:15-cv-00209-JM Document 10 Filed 05/04/16 Page 7 of 10
of a child’s physical and mental impairments and their associated treatments or

therapies on the child’s functioning.26 For the domain of health and well-being, a

child may have a marked limitation if he is frequently ill or has frequent exacerbations

of his impairment that result in significant, documented symptoms or signs.27

A pediatric cardiologist evaluated K.J.P. at age 4 years, 4 months, for a

congenital primum atrial septal defect and a cleft mitral valve.28 A primum atrial

septal defect is a hole between the two upper chambers of the heart.29 Children born

with the defect often have a gap, or a cleft, in the mitral valve that causes valve

leaking called mitral regurgitation. A surgeon repairs the defect by patching the hole

using the child’s tissue and closing the cleft using sutures.

K.J.P. underwent surgical repair at age 4 years, 6 months.30 Three weeks later,

diagnostic testing showed some mild regurgitation, but good function. K.J.P.’s

activity had improved since surgery; he was playing and running through the

2620 C.F.R. § 416.926a(l).

2720 C.F.R. § 416.926a(e)(2)(iv).

28SSA record at p. 294.

29See generally, Tal Geva, Jose D Martins & Rachel M Wald, Atrial septal

defects, 383 The Lancet 1921 (May 31, 2014).

30SSA record at p. 360.

8

Case 4:15-cv-00209-JM Document 10 Filed 05/04/16 Page 8 of 10
sprinkler.31 Two months after surgery, K.J.P. played more and got less tired.32

Diagnostic testing showed mild regurgitation; post-surgery pancreatitis had resolved. 

The cardiologist felt K.J.P. could return to full activity.33

Nine months after surgery, the cardiologist felt K.J.P. was in very good shape;

he had mild regurgitation.34 The doctor encouraged physical activity. Two years after

surgery, K.J.P. had more regurgitation — mild to moderate — but he was stable.35

K.J.P. rode bicycles and played outside, with some shortness of breath with vigorous

activity.36 His cardiologist cleared him for surgery to fix a drooping eye lid.37

According to the cardiologist, K.J.P.’s heart was doing well.38

The foregoing evidence shows K.J.P. was limited at some point in the domain

of health and physical well-being because he underwent heart surgery, but it does not

show heart surgery seriously interfered with the ability to independently initiate,

31Id. at p. 427.

32Id. at p. 419.

33Id. at pp. 420-21.

34Id. at p. 535.

35Id. at p. 538.

36Id. at p. 537.

37Id. at p. 538.

38Id.

9

Case 4:15-cv-00209-JM Document 10 Filed 05/04/16 Page 9 of 10
sustain, or complete activities.

Conclusion and Recommendation

Substantial evidence supports the decision that K.J.P. was not disabled from the

application date to the date of the unfavorable decision, because the evidence

establishes no extreme limitation in one domain or a marked limitation in two

domains. The ALJ properly considered K.J.P.’s academic record in the domains of

acquiring and using information, and attending and completing tasks. The ALJ made

no legal error. For these reasons, the undersigned magistrate judge recommends

DENYING the request for relief (docket entry # 1) and AFFIRMING the decision

denying the application.

Dated this 4th day of May, 2016.

____________________________________

United States Magistrate Judge

10

Case 4:15-cv-00209-JM Document 10 Filed 05/04/16 Page 10 of 10