Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00571/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00571-5/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)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELIZABETH ROSE SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00571-SAB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SOCIAL 

SECURITY APPEAL

(ECF Nos. 15, 16, 17)

I.

INTRODUCTION

Elizabeth Rose Smith by and through her guardian ad litem Shane Smith (“Plaintiff”) 

seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security 

(“Commissioner” or “Defendant”) denying her application for disability benefits pursuant to the 

Social Security Act. The matter is currently before the Court on the parties’ briefs, which were 

submitted, without oral argument, to Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone.1

For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Social Security appeal shall be denied.

/ / /

/ / /

 

1 The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. (See ECF Nos. 6, 8.)

Case 1:19-cv-00571-SAB Document 21 Filed 03/17/20 Page 1 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

II.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A Title XVI application for supplemental security income was protectively filed on 

behalf of Plaintiff who was a minor on August 13, 2015. (AR 85.) Plaintiff’s application was

initially denied on January 5, 2016, and denied upon reconsideration on May 24, 2016. (AR 

100-103, 106-109.) Plaintiff requested and received a hearing before Administrative Law Judge 

Shiva Bozarth (“the ALJ”). Plaintiff appeared for a hearing on March 5, 2018. (AR 36-72.) On 

June 6, 2018, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled. (AR 12-30.) The Appeals Council 

denied Plaintiff’s request for review on February 26, 2019. (AR 3-5.)

A. Hearing Testimony

Plaintiff’s father, Shane Smith testified at the March 5, 2018 hearing. (AR 43-48, 59-60, 

69-70.) Plaintiff misses a lot of school due to anger issues. (AR 43.) She has ADHD and does 

not get along very well with other children. (AR 43.) He makes her go to school, but does not 

want the school to come back and sue him because she hit someone. (AR 44.) Her doctor signs 

off for her to miss school. (AR 44.) She is attending school more often this year because her 

teachers are working with her. (AR 44.) She had problems with her teachers working with her

in the past. (AR 44.) She is getting along with other students better this year because they are 

keeping the bullies away from her. (AR 44-45.) Her school environment is more sheltered. (AR 

45.) 

Plaintiff misses school at least three times a week due to her anger or behavioral issues. 

(AR 47.) Plaintiff does not receive any accommodations for homework or tests. (AR 47.) She 

reads at a kindergarten level. (AR 47.) He does not know her grade point average. (AR 47.) 

The school will not hold her back because she was held back in first grade. (AR 47-48.) Her 

anger outbursts have not changed. (AR 48.) 

Plaintiff does not relieve herself during school and waits until she gets home to go to the 

bathroom. (AR 45.) She needs someone there with her when she is taking a shower or bath due 

to anxiety and it is comforting. (AR 45-46.) She does not resist bathing. (AR 46.) She is afraid 

of going to the bathroom herself. (AR 46.) 

Case 1:19-cv-00571-SAB Document 21 Filed 03/17/20 Page 2 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Plaintiff takes her medication as prescribed. (AR 44.) Plaintiff has been diagnosed with 

ADHD but her doctor will not prescribe any medication for it. (AR 59-60.) The doctor has not 

given any reason why he has not prescribed medication for Plaintiff’s ADHD. (AR 69-70.) 

They are treating her for anxiety. (AR 70.) 

Plaintiff testified at the March 5, 2018 hearing. (AR 49-58.) Plaintiff just turned thirteen 

years old. (AR 49-50.) She got a lot of stuff for her birthday. (AR 50.) Her favorite thing was

Monster High Dolls. (AR 50.) Plaintiff does not go to the movies. (AR 51.) The last movie she 

saw at home was Anna and Elsa. (AR 51.) Her favorite song from Frozen is Let it Go. (AR 51.) 

She “kind of” works hard at school. (AR 52.) ELA and social studies are a little easier 

than her other classes. (AR 52.) She has trouble writing because she has dyslexia. (AR 52.) 

She has one friend, Alejandra, that she finds it easier to talk to. (AR 52-53.) She likes that 

Alejandra is unique. (AR 53.) Alejandra is unique because she has braces on her feet. (AR 53.) 

Alejandra can walk without them, but it is kind of hard. (AR 53.) 

Her favorite class at school is ELA. (AR 53.) She gets to read stories when she is 

finished with her work. (AR 53.) She has not got to read many stories in there lately. (AR 54.) 

She does not like to read and has no one to read to her. (AR 54.) She has a sixteen year old 

sister. (AR 54.) Plaintiff is in seventh grade and is both excited and worried about going to high 

school the year after next. (AR 54-55.) 

Plaintiff does not like going to school but does not know why. (AR 55.) She does not 

get mad at people at school. (AR 55.) She does not get mad at her classmates or her teachers. 

(AR 56.) She does her homework in a different kind of class. (AR 56.) She has trouble with 

math and science. (AR 56.) Alejandra does not go to her house and Plaintiff does not go to 

Alejandra’s house. (AR 56-57.) Alejandra is in the same class for homework. (AR 57.) 

Everyone is quiet in the classroom. (AR 57.) 

Plaintiff has a partner in science named Maria. (AR 57.) Maria is kind of a good partner 

and kind of a bad partner because sometimes she helps Plaintiff and sometimes she does not. 

(AR 57-58.) Sometimes Maria knows the answers and will not share them with Plaintiff. (AR 

58.) Maria is not mean but Maria’s friends are kind of mean because they act like they are 

Case 1:19-cv-00571-SAB Document 21 Filed 03/17/20 Page 3 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Plaintiff’s friend but they are not. (AR 58.) 

Dr. David Huntley, a medical expert also testified at the hearing. (AR 59-69.) Dr. 

Huntley found that it was hard to say from the record that Plaintiff’s impairments were severe. 

(AR 61.) He found that her impairments were not severe. (AR 61.) Plaintiff has asthma, but she 

would not even meet the old listing. (AR 62.) There is a conflict in the record. (AR 62.) The 

record notes severe asthma but when you look at her visits for asthma they are considered mild. 

(AR 62.) The records are contradictory and she has never been hospitalized for asthma. (AR 

62.) She sees the doctor for medication refills. (AR 62.)

Plaintiff failed the grade test but the school passed her anyway. (AR 62.) Dr. Huntley 

found this significant combined with her IQ which is fairly close to meeting the listing. (AR 62.) 

Her attention is two standard deviations out. (AR 62.) The record indicates a severe impairment 

in attention, but when you have someone with this problem they also have anxiety and 

depression which is also noted in the record. (AR 63.) Her speech, fluency and everything is 

pretty normal. (AR 63.) There is plenty of documentation to see the attention issue. (AR 63.) 

All of these things that fall in line after that are due to the fact that she has not been treated for 

her ADHD. (AR 63.) Dr. Huntley opined that Plaintiff would not have a severe attention 

impairment if she was being treated for her ADHD. (AR 63.) She is receiving occupational 

therapy, but that is not a very successful form of therapy. (AR 63-64.) Therapy in the classroom 

would be helpful, but therapy outside the classroom setting would not transfer over. (AR 64.) 

Plaintiff has severe or you could say marked impairments in attention including tasks 

over pace because she has not been treated. (AR 64.) Her ability to acquire and use information 

may be impacted due to inner attention which may be an impairment, it certainly would be for 

pace. (AR 64.) There is no testing in the record to indicate what she has retained which is 

critical. (AR 64.) If she had achievement test scores it would show what she was supposed to 

have retained. (AR 64.) The lack of such testing is glaring in the record. (AR 64.) Plaintiff 

does not equal or functionally equal a listing. (AR 65.)

Usually in these cases the child has been administered achievement testing which is 

helpful because sometimes individuals are not doing well due to emotional issues. (AR 65-66.) 

Case 1:19-cv-00571-SAB Document 21 Filed 03/17/20 Page 4 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

Based on the evaluation of the teacher who was working with Plaintiff, Plaintiff has a marked 

impairment for completion and pace. (AR 66.) But it is glaring that she is not being treated for 

the disorder. (AR 66.) People who are not treated develop depression and anxiety. (AR 66.) 

Dr. Huntley stated that he could not determine whether Plaintiff’s intellectual functioning was 

caused by the untreated ADHD or whether it was a separate issue because she was not receiving 

treatment. (AR 66.) Plaintiff’s diagnosed anxiety could be due to the untreated ADHD. (AR 

67.) He sees children that come in for anxiety expecting to be put on Prozac or Valium and he 

treats them with a stimulant for ADD and their anxiety disappears. (AR 67.) Anxiety is a

condition when you expect that there will be a bad outcome and the bad outcome here has not 

been addressed. (AR 67.) It is unclear to Dr. Huntley whether the intellectual functioning, 

learning disability, or anxiety are severe impairments or are just symptoms of the untreated 

ADHD. (AR 67-68.) Dr. Huntley did opine that Plaintiff’s ADHD is a severe impairment. (AR 

68.) 

B. ALJ Findings

The ALJ made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. 

• Plaintiff was born on February 23, 2005. Therefore, she was a school-age child on 

August 13, 2015, the date application was filed and is currently an adolescent. 

• Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since August 13, 2015, the 

application date.

• Plaintiff has the following severe impairments: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder 

(“ADHD”) and the following impairments are severe in combination with the attention 

deficit disorder: learning disability, anxiety, and borderline intellectual functioning.

• Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or 

medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments.

• Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that functionally 

equals the severity of the listings.

• Plaintiff has not been disabled as defined in the Social Security Act since August 13, 

2015, the date the application was filed.

Case 1:19-cv-00571-SAB Document 21 Filed 03/17/20 Page 5 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

(AR 18-30.) 

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

An individual under the age of 18 will be considered disabled where they have 

“medically determinable physical or mental impairment or combination of impairments that 

causes marked and severe functional limitations, and that can be expected to cause death or that 

has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 20 

U.S.C. § 416.906. The Social Security regulations provide a three-step process in determining 

whether a child is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.924. First, the ALJ must determine whether the 

child is engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(a). If the child is not 

engaged in substantial gainful activity, then the analysis proceeds to step two. Step two requires 

the ALJ to determine whether the child's impairment or combination of impairments is severe. 

Id. The child will not be found to have a severe impairment if it constitutes a “slight abnormality 

or combination of slight abnormalities that causes no more than minimal functional limitations.” 

20 C.F.R. § 416.924(c) However, if there is a finding of severe impairment, the analysis 

proceeds to the final step which requires the ALJ to determine whether the impairment or 

combination of impairments “meets, medically equals or functionally equals” the severity of a 

set of criteria for an impairment in the listings. 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(d).

An impairment will be found to be functionally equivalent to a listed impairment if it 

results in marked limitations in two areas or extreme limitations in one area of functioning. 20 

C.F.R. § 416.926a(a). To determine functional equivalence, the following six domains, or broad 

areas of functioning, are utilized: acquiring and using information, attending and completing 

tasks, interacting and relating with others, moving about and manipulating objects, caring for 

yourself, and health and physical well-being. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(b). Limitations in 

functioning must result from the child’s medically determinable impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 

416.924a(a).

Congress has provided that an individual may obtain judicial review of any final decision 

of the Commissioner of Social Security regarding entitlement to benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

Case 1:19-cv-00571-SAB Document 21 Filed 03/17/20 Page 6 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

In reviewing findings of fact in respect to the denial of benefits, this court “reviews the 

Commissioner’s final decision for substantial evidence, and the Commissioner’s decision will be 

disturbed only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error.” Hill v. 

Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir. 2012). “Substantial evidence” means more than a 

scintilla, but less than a preponderance. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996) 

(internal quotations and citations omitted). “Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which, 

considering the record as a whole, a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 955 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Flaten v. Sec’y of 

Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir. 1995)). 

“[A] reviewing court must consider the entire record as a whole and may not affirm 

simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence.” Hill, 698 F.3d at 1159 (quoting 

Robbins v. Social Security Administration, 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006). However, it is not 

this Court’s function to second guess the ALJ’s conclusions and substitute the court’s judgment 

for the ALJ’s. See Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Where evidence is 

susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, it is the ALJ’s conclusion that must be

upheld.”).

IV.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred by failing to properly weigh the opinions of 

Plaintiff’s teachers and Dr. Huntley which led to the ALJ finding that Plaintiff did not have 

marked impairments in attending and completing tasks and does not functionally equal the 

listings. Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to provide germane reasons to reject the opinions of 

Plaintiff’s teachers that she had marked limitations in attending to and completing tasks. 

Plaintiff also argues that Dr. Huntley opined that Plaintiff had marked limitations in this area and 

therefore she functionally meets the listing criteria. 

Defendant counters that Plaintiff incorrectly argues that the ALJ erred in finding her 

ability to attend to and complete tasks did not rise to the level of a marked impairment. 

Defendant contends that the ALJ properly considered the six functional equivalence domains and 

Case 1:19-cv-00571-SAB Document 21 Filed 03/17/20 Page 7 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

found that in attending and completing tasks Plaintiff had less than a marked limitation. 

Defendant argues that the ALJ properly relied on the opinions of the state agency physicians who 

found that Plaintiff did not have any marked limitations other than in the area of acquiring and 

using information. Plaintiff relies on the opinion of Dr. Huntley, but Dr. Huntley questioned 

why Plaintiff was not receiving treatment for her ADHD and conditions that are subject to 

treatment cannot form the basis of entitlement to disability benefits. Further, Defendant argues 

that Plaintiff’s teachers are not medical professionals and cannot opine that her limitations are 

marked limitations.

Plaintiff replies that the regulations state that teachers may be in the best position to opine 

as to the level of a child’s limitations or impairments and the ALJ is required to weigh their 

opinions. Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ failed to give germane reasons to reject the opinions of 

Plaintiff’s teachers or explain the weight accorded to their opinions. 

A. Functional Equivalence for Children

The Social Security regulations provide that if a severe impairment does not meet or 

medically equal any listing, they “will decide whether it results in limitations that functionally 

equal the listings.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(a). A severe impairment functionally equals a listing if 

it results in “marked” limitations in two domains of functioning or in an “extreme” limitation in 

one domain. Id. 

We will find that you have a “marked” limitation in a domain when your 

impairment(s) interferes seriously with your ability to independently initiate, 

sustain, or complete activities. Your day-to-day functioning may be seriously 

limited when your impairment(s) limits only one activity or when the interactive 

and cumulative effects of your impairment(s) limit several activities. “Marked” 

limitation also means a limitation that is “more than moderate” but “less than 

extreme.” It is the equivalent of the functioning we would expect to find on 

standardized testing with scores that are at least two, but less than three, standard 

deviations below the mean.

20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(e)(2)(i). A child of any age will be found to “have a ‘marked’ limitation 

when [they] have a valid score that is two standard deviations or more below the mean, but less 

than three standard deviations, on a comprehensive standardized test designed to measure ability 

or functioning in that domain, and [their] day-to-day functioning in domain-related activities is 

consistent with that score.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(e)(2)(iii). Standardized testing provides 

Case 1:19-cv-00571-SAB Document 21 Filed 03/17/20 Page 8 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

important information about deficits in development and functioning in terms of standard 

deviations and percentiles. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(e)(1)(ii), (e)(2)(iii). However, test scores alone 

do not establish marked or extreme limitation in a domain. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.924a(a)(1)(ii), 20 

C.F.R. 416.926a(e)(4). No single piece of information taken in isolation can establish whether 

the child has a “marked” limitation in a domain. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(e)(4)(i). 

The Commissioner is to consider test scores together with reports and observations of 

school personnel and others. 20 C.F.R. § 416.924a(a); 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(e)(4)(ii). In 

assessing functional equivalence, the ALJ also considers how much extra help the child needs, 

how independent he is, how he functions in school, and effects of medication or other treatment. 

20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(a). In evaluating this type of information, the ALJ considers how the child 

performs activities as compared to other children of the same age who do not have impairments. 

20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(b). This information comes from examining and non-examining medical 

sources as well as “other sources,” such as parents, teachers, case managers, therapists, and other 

non-medical sources who have regular contact with the child. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 

416.913(a)(2), (d); Social Security Ruling (SSR) 98–1p, IV.B. (Sources of Evidence ).

Here, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in finding that she was not markedly limited in 

attending and completing tasks. The domain of attending and completing tasks considers how 

well the child is able to focus and maintain attention, how well they begin, carry through and 

finish activities, including the pace at which activities are performed and the ease at which the 

child changes them. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(h)(1)(i). 

In making a determination of disability, “the ALJ must consider the ‘combined effect’ of 

all the claimant’s impairments without regard to whether any such impairment, if considered 

separately, would be of sufficient severity.” Howard ex rel. Wolff v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 1006, 

1012 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 416.923). “However, in interpreting the evidence and 

developing the record, the ALJ does not need to ‘discuss every piece of evidence.’ ” Howard ex 

rel. Wolff, 341 F.3d at 1012 (citing Black v. Apfel, 143 F.3d 383, 386 (8th Cir. 1998); and

Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393, 1394–95 (9th Cir. 1984)). 

/ / /

Case 1:19-cv-00571-SAB Document 21 Filed 03/17/20 Page 9 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

1. Lay Witness Testimony

In evaluating child disability cases the opinions of a child’s teachers are highly probative. 

As is the case with lay witness testimony, the educators’ opinions are “other sources” which

must be considered and the ALJ must explain the weight provided to them. See Social Security 

Ruling (SSR) 06-03P (Considering Opinions & Other Evidence from Sources Who Are Not 

‘Acceptable Med. Sources’ in Disability Claims; Considering Decisions on Disability by Other 

Governmental & Nongovernmental Agencies). The ALJ cannot disregard the testimony without 

providing reasons germane to the witness. Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 

1053 (9th Cir. 2006). Further, “other source” opinions alone are insufficient to establish 

functional equivalence, which is an administrative finding that is reserved to the Commissioner. 

20 C.F.R. §§ 416.927(d), 416.926a(n); Jamerson v. Chater, 112 F.3d 1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 1997); 

SSR 06–03p.

The ALJ is not required to discuss every witness’s testimony on an individualized, 

witness-by-witness basis and where the ALJ provides germane reasons for rejecting testimony by 

one witness, the ALJ need only point to those reasons when rejecting similar testimony by a 

different witness. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012). Here, the ALJ 

discussed the witness testimony in the aggregate and set forth the findings. 

The ALJ considered the school records. 

School records indicate the claimant has gotten Resource Specialist Program help 

since 2013 Exhibit 17E [AR 302-344]. The claimant had frequent absences that 

affected her progress Exhibit 17E pp. 3, 34 [AR 335]; 18E p. 2 [AR 346]. She 

needed more time to process information, she was quiet but would speak up for 

herself, she did better in small groups, and she struggled socially Exhibit 17E p. 3

[AR 304]. She was mostly unable to do independent work but she completed 

work as a class Exhibit 17E p. 3 [AR 304]. She had no behavioral issues but she 

struggled to keep pace Exhibit 17E p. 3 [AR 304]. The claimant did okay with 

simple math but she lost the concept in complex problems Exhibit 17E p. 3 [AR 

304]. In December 2016, the claimant’s speech was 80 percent intelligible, 

gross/fine motor skills were not a concern, and her social/emotion functioning 

was not a concern Exhibit 17E p. 3 [AR 304]. She liked her material to be 

organized and there was no concern over her health Exhibit 17E p. 3 [AR 304]. 

She had been consistently below standards in math and English Exhibit 18E p. 14

[AR 358]. The most recent Individual Education Plan notes that the claimant was 

not absent as frequently but her attendance still caused her to get behind Exhibit 

12E pp. 3 [AR 267]. She had been improving in communication, she was getting 

confident answering the classroom phone, and she had passing grades in English, 

social studies, math, and reading intervention, but she had an F in science due to 

Case 1:19-cv-00571-SAB Document 21 Filed 03/17/20 Page 10 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

missing assignments and a D in physical education due to absences Exhibit 12E 

pp. 3, 4 [AR 267, 268]. She was able to work well individually and in groups 

Exhibit 12E p. 3 [AR 267].

(AR 21.) 

The claimant’s fifth grade RSP teacher, Lynn Harris, completed a teacher 

questionnaire dated October 2015 Exhibit 2F pp. 1-8 [AR 370-377]. She 

indicated the claimant was at a kindergarten to first grade reading and written 

language level and a second grade math level Exhibit 2F p. 1 [AR 370]. She

indicated there were obvious to very serious problems in acquiring and using 

information, and noted that the claimant needed teacher support, verbal and 

written sentence frames, and lots of visual aids Exhibit 2F p. 2 [AR 371]. She 

reported the claimant had no to very serious problems in areas related to attending 

and completing tasks and she usually did not complete homework assignments 

Exhibit 2F p. 3 [AR 372]. There were no problems in interacting and relating 

with others except slight daily problems using adequate vocabulary and grammar 

to express thoughts/ideas in general every day conversation Exhibit 2F p. 4 [AR 

373]. However, she could understand almost all of the claimant’s speech Exhibit 

2F p. 5 [AR 374]. There were no problems in moving about and manipulating 

objects Exhibit 2F p. 5 [AR 374]. She had no to slight problems in caring for 

herself, except she had an obvious problem with using appropriate coping skills to 

meet daily demands of school environment and a serious problem with knowing 

when to ask for help Exhibit 2F p. 6 [AR 375]. I have considered this report and I 

give it some weight as the claimant’s teachers are in a good position to accurately 

report her functional ability.

(AR 21-22.) 

The claimant’s sixth grade RSP teacher, Benjamin Ramirez, completed a teacher 

questionnaire dated May 2017 Exhibit 10E [AR 246-253]. He indicated mostly 

slight to obvious problems in acquiring and using information with serious 

problems in understanding school and content vocabulary and providing 

organized oral explanations and adequate descriptions Exhibit 10E p. 2 [AR 247]. 

He noted the claimant required constant support to understand basic concepts, had 

difficulty forming coherent sentences, and had a difficult time verbalizing needs 

and advocating for herself Exhibit 10E p. 2 [AR 247]. He indicated mostly no to 

slight problems in attending and completing tasks with an obvious problem in 

completing assignments, completing work accurately without careless mistakes, 

and working at a reasonable pace/finishing on time Exhibit 10E p. 3 [AR 248]. 

He noted that without regular support the claimant falls behind Exhibit 10E p. 3

[AR 248]. Mr. Ramirez opined mostly no to slight problems in interacting and 

relating with others but with an obvious problem with making and keeping 

friends, relating experiences and telling stories, and introducing and maintaining 

relevant and appropriate topics of conversations, and a very serious problem with 

respecting/obeying adults in authority Exhibit 10E p. 4 [AR 249]. He specifically 

noted the claimant was painfully shy and showing signs of anxiety Exhibit 10E p. 

4 [AR 249]. There were no problems with moving about and manipulating 

objects Exhibit 10E p. 5 [AR 250]. There were no to slight problems in most 

areas of caring for herself, but there was an obvious problem in identifying and 

appropriately asserting emotional needs and knowing when to ask for help Exhibit 

10E p. 6 [AR 256]. Mr. Ramirez noted asthma and that the claimant missed one 

to two days a week due to anxiety per a doctor’s note Exhibit 10E p. 7[AR 257]. 

This report is also given some weight in making this decision as consistent with 

the overall record.

Case 1:19-cv-00571-SAB Document 21 Filed 03/17/20 Page 11 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12

(AR 22.) 

The claimant’s seventh grade teacher, Julia Lofy, completed a teacher 

questionnaire dated November 2017 Exhibit 13E [AR 287-295]. She noted the 

claimant’s reading, math, and written language was at a first grade level Exhibit 

13E p. 1 [AR 287]. She indicated mostly obvious problems in acquiring and 

using information with serious problems with understanding and participating in 

class discussions and providing organized oral explanations and adequate 

descriptions Exhibit 13E p. 3 [AR 289]. The claimant had no to slight problems 

in most areas related to attending and completing tasks with serious problems in 

completing class/homework assignments, completing work accurately without 

careless mistakes, and working at a reasonable pace/finishing on time Exhibit 13E 

p. 4 [AR 290]. The claimant’s teacher reported no problems in interacting and 

relating with others moving about and manipulating objects or caring for herself 

and she was not aware of the claimant’s physical health Exhibit BE pp. 5, 6, 8

[AR 291, 292, 294]. I give this report some weight also. It appears fairly 

consistent with other teacher reports and also supports the increase in functioning 

associated with less absences.

(AR 23.) 

The ALJ found that Plaintiff had less than a marked limitation in attending and 

completing tasks. (AR 26.) “The teacher questionnaires indicate some problems completing 

assignments. However, her grades have improved with fewer absences. (AR 26.) The 

consultative examiner indicated the claimant was able to persist. In addition, although she was 

quiet and shy during the hearing she was able to answer my questions appropriately.” (AR 26.) 

In addressing the other functional areas, the ALJ also found that Plaintiff’s grades and abilities 

had improved due to her improved attendance. (AR 25, 27.) 

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to provide any reasons for the weight provided to 

the reports of Ms. Harris, Mr. Ramirez, and Ms. Lofy. However, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff has 

increased in her functioning since she has had less absences. Substantial evidence in the record 

supports that ALJ’s findings that Plaintiff had increased functioning when she started attending 

school more frequently. 

Plaintiff argues that Ms. Harris reported that she had serious problems organizing her 

own materials at school and carrying out multi-step instructions and that she had unexcused 

absences. Ms. Harris completed a teacher questionnaire on Plaintiff’s overall functioning on 

October 14, 2015. (AR 370-377.) Ms. Harris stated that Plaintiff was absent one to two days per 

week. (AR 370.) She did not know the cause of Plaintiff’s absences because most of them were 

Case 1:19-cv-00571-SAB Document 21 Filed 03/17/20 Page 12 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

unexcused. (AR 376.) She opined that Plaintiff had serious problems in carrying out multi-step 

instructions, organizing her own things or school materials; and a very serious problem with 

completing class/homework assignments and working at a reasonable pace/finishing on time. 

(AR 372.) She noted that Plaintiff’s homework assignments were usually not completed. (AR 

372.) 

Plaintiff had an IEP on August 18, 2016, in which it is noted that she had many absences 

this year that affected her progress. (AR 327.) 

In her December 8, 2016 IEP, Plaintiff’s reading intervention teacher states that her 

attendance is not consistent and the absences are affecting her progress. (AR 304.) Her ELA 

teacher reported that Plaintiff was often absent which is affecting her grades negatively. (AR 

304.) She had not made any progress toward her goals due to her poor attendance. (AR 305-

309.) 

On March 13, 2017, it was noted that Plaintiff was absent at least fifty percent of the 

time. (AR 277.) 

Mr. Ramirez completed a teacher questionnaire on Plaintiff’s overall functioning on May 

2, 2017. (AR 246-253.) He also noted that Plaintiff was absent one to two times per week and 

that she had a doctor’s note concerning anxiety. (AR 246.) He opined that Plaintiff had an 

obvious problem with completing class/homework assignments, completing work accurately, 

and working at a reasonable pace/finishing on time. (AR 248.) She had a slight problem with 

organizing her own things or school materials. (AR 248.) He noted that she needs a lot of 

support at every moment of the day. (AR 248.) Without regular support she falls behind in his 

class. (AR 248.) 

Plaintiff’s November 7, 2017 IEP report by her ELA/Social Science instructor states that 

Plaintiff has had growth in student involvement and progress in the general curriculum. (AR 

267.) She is communicating more with the teacher and knows the material when it is read aloud. 

(AR 267.) She can verbally tell the teacher the answers and then write them down when 

prompted. (AR 267.) The teacher noticed that she is coming to school more. (AR 267.) Her 

attendance is helping her stay on track and get her work done in a timely manner. (AR 267.) 

Case 1:19-cv-00571-SAB Document 21 Filed 03/17/20 Page 13 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14

The teacher did not have any major concerns since she is doing better and getting her work done. 

(AR 267.) 

Her science teacher reported that she has improved on getting started on assignments 

without being reminded and tries to complete assignments. (AR 267.) She has been attempting 

all assignments that have been given. (AR 267.) There was still a concern about attendance 

because she would get behind due to her poor attendance and once she is behind she does not 

catch up. (AR 267.) Last year Plaintiff’s attendance was not consistent, but attendance is much 

improved this year and she is there on time most days. (AR 267.)

In intervention she comes to class daily ready to work. (AR 268.) Plaintiff has grown in 

her ability to start assignments and persevere to finish. (AR 268.) It was reported that a lot of 

improvement had been seen in communication development, including being in class with less 

absences. (AR 268.) 

On November 28, 2017, Ms. Lofty completed a teacher questionnaire on Plaintiff’s 

overall functioning. (AR 287-295.) Plaintiff had some degree of absenteeism. (AR 287.) Like 

Mr. Ramirez, she opined that that Plaintiff had an obvious problem with completing 

class/homework assignments, completing work accurately without careless mistakes, and 

working at a reasonable pace/finishing on time; and a slight problem organizing her own things 

or school materials. (AR 290.) 

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ ignored the marked limitation in attending to and completing 

tasks despite evidence from all three of her teachers. But the ALJ provided a germane reason for 

the weight provided to these opinions, that Plaintiff had increased functioning and her grades 

improved when she started attending school more frequently and there is substantial evidence in 

the record to support this finding. Plaintiff points to evidence in the record to support a finding 

of marked limitations, but where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational 

interpretation, the court “must uphold the ALJ’s findings if they are supported by inferences 

reasonably drawn from the record.” Molina, 674 F.3d at 1111.

The ALJ also noted that the teachers’ statements are inconsistent with the testimony of 

the consultative examiner who indicated the claimant was able to persist. (AR 26.) Plaintiff had 

Case 1:19-cv-00571-SAB Document 21 Filed 03/17/20 Page 14 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15

a psychological assessment by Dr. Swanson on December 29, 2015. (AR 438-443.) Dr. 

Swanson found that Plaintiff had “the ability to engage in and sustain an activity at a pace that is 

mostly appropriate for her age.” (AR 442.) An ALJ may reject lay witness testimony that 

conflicts with the medical evidence. Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 511 (9th Cir. 2001); Bayliss 

v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 2005).

The ALJ provided germane reasons to reject the testimony of Plaintiff’s teachers.

2. Dr. Huntley’s Testimony

The weight to be given to medical opinions depends upon whether the opinion is 

proffered by a treating, examining, or non-examining professional. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 

821, 830-831 (9th Cir. 1995). In general, a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to greater 

weight than that of a nontreating physician because “he is employed to cure and has a greater 

opportunity to know and observe the patient as an individual.” Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 

1035, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). If a treating physician’s opinion is 

contradicted by another doctor, it may be rejected only for “specific and legitimate reasons” 

supported by substantial evidence in the record. Ryan v. Commissioner of Social Sec., 528 F.3d 

1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1216).

 Plaintiff argues that Dr. Huntley opined that she had marked limitations in attending and 

completing tasks because her performance on testing was two standard deviations below 

average. However, as stated above test scores alone do not establish marked or extreme 

limitation in a domain. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.924a(a)(1)(ii), 20 C.F.R. 416.926a(e)(4). No single 

piece of information taken in isolation can establish whether the child has a “marked” limitation 

in a domain. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(e)(4)(i). 

In assessing Plaintiff’s attention, Dr. Huntley noted that the record showed that Plaintiff 

was two standard deviations “out of it”. (AR 62.) Dr. Huntley referenced sensory processing 

findings by Kristen Otto Otrl during an occupational therapy evaluation on January 28, 2016. 

(AR 448.) He also referred to Dr. Fernandez treatment notes which indicates that Plaintiff is 

having difficulty getting the attention of her teacher which is causing increased stress and poor 

school performance. (AR 516.) Dr. Huntley appears to indicate that this is emotional. (AR 63.) 

Case 1:19-cv-00571-SAB Document 21 Filed 03/17/20 Page 15 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

16

But Dr. Huntley opined that Plaintiff would not have a severe impairment for attention if she was 

being treated. (AR 63.) Dr. Huntley found that the record indications that Plaintiff had “severe 

or at least you could say marked impairments for attention and including tasks over pace” were 

because she had not been treated and were “a kind of misreading.” (AR 64.) Dr. Huntley found 

that the teachers working with her did find that she had a marked impairment for completion and 

pace which would be two impairments. (AR 66.) But Dr. Huntley ultimately opined that 

Plaintiff did not functionally equal a listing. (AR 65.) 

The ALJ addressed Dr. Huntley’s testimony.

The medical expert noted that he saw a lot of mentions of ADHD in the record but 

he questioned why she was not prescribed any treatment. He testified that the 

claimant had asthma that did not meet any listing and did not appear to be severe. 

The medical expert testified that he believed the claimant’s emotional problems 

were attributed to the lack of treatment for ADHD. He also opined that 

occupational therapy was not suitable treatment for her condition. He opined the 

claimant had a marked restriction in her attention and he suggested the claimant’s 

teachers were in the best position to evaluate her functioning. However, because 

the ADHD was not being treated it was unclear whether the anxiety and 

depression were severe impairments or if they were symptoms of ADHD. He said 

that ADHD was a severe impairment.

(AR 20.) The ALJ gave some weight to Dr. Huntley’s testimony because the suitability of the 

claimant’s treatment is not an area that this decision can consider. (AR 24.) 

Although the ALJ stated that Dr. Huntley found that Plaintiff had a marked restriction in 

her attention, Dr. Huntley actually found that the record indications that Plaintiff had a marked 

limitation in attention and pace were a misreading of the record. Although Plaintiff’s teachers 

found a marked impairment in completion and pace, Dr. Huntley found that Plaintiff’s 

difficulties in attention and pace were due to the failure to provide treatment. Dr. Huntly opined 

that Plaintiff did not functionally equal a listing. To the extent that the ALJ misstated Dr. 

Huntley’s findings it is harmless error which does not require reversal. Burch, 400 F.3d at 679;

Molina, 674 F.3d at 1115. The ALJ gave some weight to Dr. Huntley’s opinion because the 

suitability of the treatment being provided to Plaintiff was not an area that the ALJ was deciding. 

The ALJ did not reject the opinion of Dr. Huntley. In considering Plaintiff’s limitations in 

attending and completing tasks, Dr. Huntley found that Plaintiff did not functionally equal a 

listing. (AR 64-65.) 

Case 1:19-cv-00571-SAB Document 21 Filed 03/17/20 Page 16 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

17

The ALJ did not err by rejecting Dr. Huntley’s opinion. 

V.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err in evaluating the 

testimony of Plaintiff’s teachers or the medical expert. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is 

DENIED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of Defendant 

Commissioner of Social Security and against Plaintiff Elizabeth Rose Smith. The Clerk of the 

Court is directed to CLOSE this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00571-SAB Document 21 Filed 03/17/20 Page 17 of 17