Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_04-cv-05312/USCOURTS-arwd-5_04-cv-05312-0/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)

---

Page 1 of 9

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

EVELYN PATRICK o/b/o

A.P. PLAINTIFF

V. Civil No. 04-5312

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On this 24th day of March 2006, there comes on for

consideration the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 8) filed in

this case on February 8, 2006, by the Honorable Beverly Stites

Jones, United States Magistrate for the Western District of

Arkansas. The Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration (Commissioner) has filed written Objections

(Doc. 9) and the Court has conducted a de novo review. The

Court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds and orders

as follows:

1. Plaintiff, Evelyn Patrick, brings this action on

behalf of her minor son, A.P., seeking judicial review of the

Commissioner’s decision – issued by an Administrative Law

Judge (ALJ) on October 6, 2004 – denying A.P.’s application

for child’s supplemental security income (SSI) benefits. On

February 8, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and

Recommendation, finding that the decision was not supported by

Case 5:04-cv-05312-JLH Document 10 Filed 03/24/06 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
Page 2 of 9

substantial evidence and recommending that the matter be

remanded for further consideration.

2. Standard of Review -- The Court’s review is limited

to whether the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits is

supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.

See Ostronski v. Chater, 94 F.3d 413, 416. 

Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a

reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support

the Commissioner’s conclusion. In assessing the

substantiality of the evidence, we must consider

evidence that detracts from the Commissioner’s

decision as well as evidence that supports it. We

may not reverse the Commissioner merely because

substantial evidence exists supporting a different

outcome. Black v. Apfel, 143 F.3d 383, 385 (8th

Cir. 1998) (internal quotations and citations

omitted). 

3. Childhood Disability Analysis -- A three-step

analysis is applied to childhood disability determinations.

See Pepper ex rel. Gardner v. Barnhart, 342 F.3d 853, 854 (8th

Cir. 2003); see also 416.924(a). 

* First, the ALJ must determine whether the child is

engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. §

416.924(b). 

* Second, the ALJ must determine whether the child’s

impairments are “severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(c).

* Third, the ALJ must determine whether the severe

impairments meet, are medically equal, or are functionally

equal in severity to the listed impairments set forth in the

Case 5:04-cv-05312-JLH Document 10 Filed 03/24/06 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
Page 3 of 9

disability regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(d).

Functional equivalence may be established by demonstrating

marked limitations in two, or extreme limitations in one of

the following areas:

- 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.

20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(a)(1).

4. ALJ’s Findings -- The ALJ found that A.P.’s claim

failed at step three -- as he did not have an impairment that

met or medically or functionally equaled a listed impairment.

The ALJ determined that A.P. had:

* marked limitations in his ability to acquire and use

information;

* no limitations in his ability to attend and complete

tasks, interact and relate with others, move about and

manipulate objects, and care for himself; and

* less than marked limitations in his health and

physical well-being. (Tr. 16-19.)

(a) Interacting and Relating with Others -- The

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation stated that it

was “of particular concern” that the ALJ found no limitations

in the area of interacting and relating with others.

Case 5:04-cv-05312-JLH Document 10 Filed 03/24/06 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
Page 4 of 9

Contrariwise, the Magistrate Judge concluded the evidence

clearly demonstrated that A.P. had some limitations in this

area and that these limitations were not considered by the

ALJ. (Doc. 8 at pg. 4.) 

The Commissioner objects to this conclusion and insists

that the ALJ’s finding was supported by substantial evidence.

In connection with her concern with the ALJ’s finding

that A.P. suffered no limitations in the area of interacting

and relating with others, the Magistrate Judge noted:

* that a child disability function form completed by

A.P.’s mother stated that he did not have friends his own age,

was unable to make new friends, and could not play team sports

(Tr. 77-82);

* that a school questionnaire completed by A.P.’s

resource teacher on January 11, 2003, stated that A.P. had

certain behavioral problems (Tr. 98-99);

* that a second school questionnaire completed by A.P.’s

resource teacher and his mother on January 22, 2003, portrayed

A.P.’s behavioral problems as much worse than stated on the

January 11 questionnaire (Tr. 94-95); and th

* that in a March 4, 2003, intellectual assessment with

Dr. Mary Sonntag, A.P. and his mother both indicated that he

sometimes “got into it” with his teachers; that he had been

“kicked out of school” for fighting; that he withdrew into his

Case 5:04-cv-05312-JLH Document 10 Filed 03/24/06 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
Page 5 of 9

bedroom when visitors came to his house; and that he stayed

away from his neighbors (Tr. 153-55).

(1) With regard to the school questionnaire

completed on January 11, 2003, A.P.’s resource teacher

indicated that A.P. had no problems with social functioning;

that he might talk out of turn or interrupt others on only a

weekly basis; and that he might demonstrate temper outbursts,

become physically overactive and engage in aggressive behavior

on only a monthly basis. Further, A.P.’s resource teacher

reported that there had been a good response by A.P. to

intervention consisting of verbal correction, loss of

privileges, detention, referral to the principal, and

suspension. (Tr. 98-99.) The Court believes this

questionnaire was properly considered by the ALJ.

(2) As to the second school questionnaire dated

January 22, 2003, portraying A.P.’s behavioral problems as

much worse (Tr. 94-95), the ALJ observed that the information

on it was provided by A.P.’s mother. The ALJ ruled that the

information provided by A.P.’s mother would not be considered,

as A.P.’s mother had no knowledge of how A.P. functioned in

the classroom setting and there was a striking contrast

between A.P.’s mother’s and A.P.’s teacher’s assessment of his

functioning. 

Case 5:04-cv-05312-JLH Document 10 Filed 03/24/06 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
Page 6 of 9

In light of the foregoing, The Court concludes that the

ALJ was justified in not crediting the second questionnaire.

(3) The remaining evidence regarding A.P.’s

limitations in the area of interacting and relating with

others was based on the reports of A.P.’s mother on the

disability function form and during Dr. Sonntag’s intellectual

assessment. 

The Court believes the ALJ was justified in rejecting

A.P.’s mother’s reports, as they were inconsistent with the

record as a whole. As observed by the ALJ, Dr. Sonntag noted

no evidence of unusual passivity, dependency, aggression or

impulsiveness in A.P.’s behavior. (Tr. 154) Further, on his

Spring 2004 report card, A.P.’s conduct was rated as good to

excellent in all classes, with the exception of one, in which

his conduct was rated as satisfactory. (Tr. 145.)

(4) The above evidence does, as the Magistrate

Judge concluded, demonstrate that A.P. has some limitations in

the area of interacting and relating with others. However,

the Court does not believe this evidence, when viewed in

conjunction with the record as whole, demonstrates that A.P.

has a marked limitation, as is required to support a finding

of disability. See 20 C.F.R. 416.926a(e)(2) (a marked

limitation means a limitation that is more than moderate but

less than extreme; a child will be found to have a marked

Case 5:04-cv-05312-JLH Document 10 Filed 03/24/06 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
Page 7 of 9

limitation when the impairment interferes seriously with the

child’s ability to independently initiate, sustain, or

complete activities). Thus, the Court cannot say that the

ALJ’s conclusion on that score is not supported by substantial

evidence.

(b) Mental Retardation - Adaptive Functioning -- The

Magistrate Judge also found a disability evaluation completed

by Dr. Stephen Whaley to be of concern. (Tr. 156-61.)

Specifically, the Magistrate Judge noted Dr. Whaley stated

that A.P.’s IQ and achievement were consistent with mental

retardation, but that it was not clear that his adaptive

functioning was consistent with mental retardation. The

Magistrate Judge thus concluded that the issue was unclear and

directed the ALJ on remand to further develop the record on

A.P.’s adaptive functioning. 

Again, the Commissioner objects to this conclusion and

the resulting direction recommended.

Section 112.05 of the childhood listing for mental

retardation describes mental retardation as characterized by

significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning and

deficits in adaptive functioning. The ALJ found that, while

A.P.’s IQ and achievement scores were compatible with a

diagnosis of mild mental retardation, he did not meet the 

Case 5:04-cv-05312-JLH Document 10 Filed 03/24/06 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
Page 8 of 9

mental retardation listing because he did not suffer from any

deficits in his adaptive functioning. 

Dr. Whaley completed the disability evaluation form cited

to by the Magistrate Judge without examining A.P. 

The ALJ relied on Dr. Sonntag’s consultative evaluation

of A.P. As observed by the ALJ, Dr. Sonntag was requested to

specifically evaluate A.P.’s adaptive functioning. Dr.

Sonntag found:

* that A.P. had no deficits in his ability to

communicate effectively or in his speech or language; 

* that there was no evidence of unusual passivity,

dependency, aggression, or impulsiveness;

* that A.P. could dress himself, cooperate with

taking his medication, and did not engage in dangerous

behaviors;

* that A.P. did not appear to have any physical

problems or limitations that would interfere with his adaptive

functioning; and

* that A.P. had average concentration, persistence

and pace. (Tr. at 154-55.)

The ALJ found that Dr. Sonntag’s evaluation was

corroborated throughout the record, as A.P.’s resource teacher

reported no deficits in A.P.’s articulation, language, social

functioning, or in his concentration, persistence, and pace.

Case 5:04-cv-05312-JLH Document 10 Filed 03/24/06 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
Page 9 of 9

Further, A.P.’s resource teacher reported only slight behavior

difficulties and indicated that A.P. had responded well to

intervention. (Tr. 94-95.) Further, school records showed

that A.P. had not repeated any grade level and records from

his treating pediatrician did not allude to any deficits in

his adaptive functioning or any problems with his behavior. 

Based on the above, the Court concludes that the ALJ’s

finding that A.P. suffered no deficits in adaptive functioning

is supported by substantial evidence.

5. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the

Commissioner’s objections to the Report and Recommendation

should be sustained and that the recommendations of the Report

and Recommendation should not be adopted. Accordingly, the

Court hereby Affirms the ALJ’s decision and plaintiff’s

complaint will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A separate

judgment will be entered accordingly.

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/S/JIMM LARRY HENDREN 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 5:04-cv-05312-JLH Document 10 Filed 03/24/06 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>