Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00230/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00230-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:1383 Review of HHS Decision

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

PINE BLUFF DIVISION 

JESSE KRUMMEL, SR., o/b/o J.J.K. PLAINTIFF 

v. 5:19-cv-00230-SWW-JJV 

 

ANDREW SAUL, 

Commissioner, 

Social Security Administration, DEFENDANT 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

 

INSTRUCTIONS

 This recommended disposition has been submitted to United States District Judge Susan 

Webber Wright. The parties may file specific objections to these findings and recommendations 

and must provide the factual or legal basis for each objection. The objections must be filed with 

the Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings and recommendations. A 

copy must be served on the opposing party. The District Judge, even in the absence of objections, 

may reject these proposed findings and recommendations in whole or in part. 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

 Jesse Krummel, Sr. brought this action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), on behalf of 

his minor child, J.J.K., for review of the final decision of the Social Security Administration’s 

denial of his claim for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 

42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3). 

I. BACKGROUND 

 On November 20, 2018, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rendered a decision finding 

Plaintiff’s son not disabled. (Tr. 9-23.) The ALJ found J.J.K. was a school age child when 

Plaintiff filed his application, and when the ALJ rendered his decision. (Tr. 12.) See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 416.926a(g)(2). The ALJ also found J.J.K. had never engaged in substantial gainful activity. 

(Id.) The ALJ determined Plaintiff’s son had the following severe impairments: post-traumatic 

Case 5:19-cv-00230-SWW Document 14 Filed 12/05/19 Page 1 of 6
2 

stress disorder and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. (Id.) The ALJ then determined 

J.J.K.’s impairments or combination of impairments did not meet or medically equal a listed 

impairment. (Tr. 12-13.) Finally, the ALJ found J.J.K. did not have an impairment or 

combination of impairments that functionally equaled a listed impairment. (Tr. 13-22.) The ALJ 

stated, “The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that result in 

either ‘marked’ limitations in two domains of functioning or ‘extreme’ limitation in one domain 

of functioning.” (Tr. 22.) Thus, the ALJ found J.J.K. had not been disabled since March 29, 

2017, the date of Plaintiff’s application. (Id.) The Appeals Council concluded there was no 

basis to change the ALJ’s decision; so, the ALJ’s decision became the Commissioner’s final 

administrative decision subject to judicial review. (Tr. 1-3); See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

 The role of courts under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is to determine whether there is substantial 

evidence in the record to support the decision of the Commissioner, and not to re-weigh the 

evidence or try the issues de novo. See Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1012 (8th Cir. 2000). If 

substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s findings and they are conclusive, a court should 

affirm them. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390 (1971). Substantial evidence is more 

than a scintilla but less than a preponderance and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind 

might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. at 401. A court may not reverse a prior 

determination based only on a finding that substantial evidence would support an opposite 

decision. See Prosch, 201 F.3d at 1012; Johnson v. Chater, 87 F.3d 1015, 1017 (8th Cir. 1996). 

Consequently, a court’s review of this case is limited and deferential to the Commissioner. See 

Ostronski v. Chater, 94 F.3d 413, 416 (8th Cir. 1996). 

Case 5:19-cv-00230-SWW Document 14 Filed 12/05/19 Page 2 of 6
3 

 In determining whether an impairment or combination of impairments functionally equals 

a listing, the ALJ must have assessed the claimant’s functioning in terms of six domains: (1) 

acquiring and using information; (2) attending and completing tasks; (3) interacting and relating 

with others; (4) moving about and manipulating items; (5) caring for themselves; and (6) health 

and physical well-being. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(b)(1). 

 To functionally equal a listed impairment, the plaintiff’s impairment or combination of 

impairments must result in “marked” limitations in two domains of functioning or an “extreme” 

limitation in one domain. 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(d). Plaintiff has the burden of proving his 

disability. See 42 U.S.C. § 1385c(a)(3)(A); Ingram v. Chater, 107 F.3d 598, 601 (8th Cir. 1997). 

A claimant must meet all of the specified medical criteria of the particular listing. Sullivan v. 

Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990). The standard for medical equivalency is similarly demanding. 

In order to equal a listing, plaintiff must present medical findings equal in severity to all the criteria 

of the listed impairment. Marciniak v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 1350, 1351 (8th Cir. 1995) (citing 

Sullivan, 493 U.S. at 530 (an impairment does not meet or equal a listing if it has only some of the 

medical criteria, no matter how severe)). 

 After careful consideration of the record and pleadings in this case, for the following 

reasons, I find the decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence. 

III. ANALYSIS

 In support of the Complaint, Plaintiff essentially contends that the ALJ’s decision is not 

supported by substantial evidence1. (Doc. 12 at 1.) Plaintiff attached twenty-eight pages of 

 

1

 The Commissioner argues, “Plaintiff’s Brief fails to meet the minimum requirements set forth 

by this Court.” (Doc. No. 13 at 4.) The Commissioner raises a fair point. But out of an 

abundance of caution, a full review is warranted. 

Case 5:19-cv-00230-SWW Document 14 Filed 12/05/19 Page 3 of 6
4 

records to his Complaint. Those documents will not be considered and only those records that 

are part of the administrative transcript (Doc. No. 11) were considered as a part of this decision. 

 This Court’s focus is on J.J.K’s “severe” impairments. As previously noted, those 

impairments are post-traumatic stress disorder and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. 

Plaintiff’s Complaint also focuses on these impairments. (Doc. No. 12 at 1.) 

 A finding of disability under the listing 112.11 for Attention Deficient Hyperactivity 

Disorder (“ADHD”) requires medically documented findings of marked inattention, marked 

impulsiveness, and marked hyperactivity. A child possesses a marked limitation when his 

impairments interfere seriously with their ability to “independently initiate, sustain, or complete 

activities.” Garrett ex rel. Moore v. Barnhart, 366 F.3d 643, 651 (8th Cir. 2004) (quoting 20 

C.F.R. § 416.926a). 

 A finding of disability under listing 112.15 for Trauma – and stressor – related disorders 

requires medically documented findings of marked limitation in two of the following functional 

areas: Understand, remember, or apply information, Interact with others; Concentrate, persist, or 

maintain pace; Adapt or manage oneself; or it is serious and persistent requiring treatment with 

marginal adjustment. 

 Kenneth B. Robinson, M.S. and Samuel B. Hester, Ph.D., completed an Intellectual 

Assessment and Evaluation of Adaptive Functioning of J.J.K. (Tr. 243-247.) This evidence is 

the most important evidence in the record. While there is limitation noted, nothing in this report 

indicates J.J.K. can be considered disabled. 

 With regard to his ability to attend and sustain concentration on basic tasks, Mr. Robinson 

reported, “[J.J.K.] had some difficulty working without interruption. Staying focused may be an 

Case 5:19-cv-00230-SWW Document 14 Filed 12/05/19 Page 4 of 6
5 

area of concern.” (Tr. 246.) And with regard to his capacity to sustain persistence in 

completing tasks, Mr. Robinson stated, “Persistence was fine as long as the activity was within 

[J.J.K’s] comfort zone. Otherwise, problem solving started breaking down.” (Id.) And 

concerning J.J.K.’s ability to complete school tasks within an acceptable timeframe, Mr. Robinson 

concluded, he “may require his work to be broken up into smaller segments to prevent him from 

being overwhelmed.” (Id.) As previously stated, J.J.K. clearly suffers from some degree of 

limitation. However, the evaluators noted nothing during the evaluation that amounted to 

“marked” limitation. 

 Furthermore, as the Commissioner points out in his brief, the ALJ correctly noted that 

J.J.K.’s impairments were responsive to treatment. (Tr. 19, 20, 219, 292.) Impairments that can 

be controlled by treatment or medication cannot be considered disabling. Brown v. Astrue, 611 

F.3d 941, 955 (8thCir. 2010). 

 Lastly, J.J.K.’s medical records were evaluated by Janece Hiegel, M.D., and Valeria Malak, 

M.D. Both medical doctors concluded that J.J.K.’s impairments met the regulatory definition of 

“severe,” but these impairments did not meet or functionally equal any of the listings. (Tr. 67-

69, 81-83.) While I recognize these doctors did not actually examine J.J.K., their opinions can 

still constitute substantial evidence upon which the ALJ could rely. This is especially true when 

their opinions are consistent with other evidence of record. 

IV. CONCLUSION

 I have reviewed the entire record, including the briefs, the ALJ’s decision, the transcript of 

the hearing, and the medical and other evidence. There is ample evidence on the record as a 

whole that “a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support [the] conclusion” of the ALJ 

Case 5:19-cv-00230-SWW Document 14 Filed 12/05/19 Page 5 of 6
6 

in this case. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. at 401; see also Reutter ex rel. Reutter v. Barnhart, 

372 F.3d 946, 950 (8th Cir. 2004). The Commissioner’s decision is not based on legal error. 

 IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that the final determination of the Commissioner 

be affirmed and Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. 

 DATED this 5th day of December 2019. 

 

 ____________________________________ 

 JOE J. VOLPE 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 5:19-cv-00230-SWW Document 14 Filed 12/05/19 Page 6 of 6