Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_05-cv-04030/USCOURTS-arwd-4_05-cv-04030-0/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

TEXARKANA DIVISION

SHEILA WHITAKER o/b/o

J.D.W. PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-4030

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, 

Commissioner, Social 

Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Factual and Procedural Background:

The plaintiff in this case, Sheila Whitaker (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 son, J.D.W. (hereinafter

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

Title XVI, 42 U.S.C. § 1381a. Both parties have filed appeal briefs (Doc. #7 & 8). 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 ALJ’s written decision

and will not be recounted here except as necessary. 

The plaintiff asserts disability due to claimant’s asthma, fatigue, decreased

concentration, cognitive skills and speech ability. The issue before this Court is whether the

Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial record evidence. Specifically, the plaintiff

asserts the ALJ erred in finding less than marked/extreme limitations in the areas of: acquiring

and using information; attending and completing tasks; and, overall health and well being. 

Case 4:05-cv-04030-BES Document 9 Filed 05/15/06 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

In determining the plaintiff’s claim, the ALJ followed the sequential evaluation process,

set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 416.924. Under this most recent standard, a child must prove that he

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 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 this evaluation process, the analysis ends at step three with the

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

More 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,

Case 4:05-cv-04030-BES Document 9 Filed 05/15/06 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

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). See also, Moore ex rel. Moore v. Barnhart, 413 F.3d 718, 722 n. 4 (8th

Cir.2005). 

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 an

impairment in the Listings. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(d). A marked limitation is defined as an

impairment that is "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

Case 4:05-cv-04030-BES Document 9 Filed 05/15/06 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-4-

activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(e)(2). An extreme limitation is defined as “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." Ellis v. Barnhart, 392 F.3d 988, 993 (8th

Cir.2005); 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

process 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, the ALJ found that the claimant has asthma, a “severe impairment” as

that term in contemplated in the regulations (T. 16). Consequently, the pivotal issue remains

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

Case 4:05-cv-04030-BES Document 9 Filed 05/15/06 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-5-

that claimant’s impairment does 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 due process hearing, the claimant was 7 years old and

repeating the first grade, in regular classes (T. 173, 174). Both the plaintiff and the claimant’s

grandmother, testified at the hearing conducted on October 27, 2004, and plaintiff was

represented by counsel (T. 171-185). The ALJ issued his written decision, dated December 14,

2004 (T. 11-16). 

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

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

Case 4:05-cv-04030-BES Document 9 Filed 05/15/06 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-6-

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

entitled to benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(d). Plaintiff challenges whether there was sufficient

evidence to support the ALJ’s conclusions that claimant suffered: a less than marked limitation

in the three domains of: acquiring and using information; attending and completing tasks; and,

health and physical well-being (Doc. #7). 

Plaintiff contends:

This is a minor [claimant] who at the time of the hearing was seven years of age. 

The physical problems are that of asthma and a breathing problem. The minor

[claimant] as of the time of the hearing was on an Albuterol pump. It has

affected her school attendance and once there she has problems with speech,

stuttering, and confusion about what she talks about. There are cognitive

problems and concentration problems plus the minor [claimant] has coughing all

the time and gasping for breath. A lot of times the minor [claimant] has to stay

in bed, and she is hort winded. The school records show that the minor

[claimant] has problems with reading and math below grade level and that she

has had to repeat the first grade. The problems are with asthma which spill into

cognitive and concentration and speech. From the medical evidence as well as

from the testimony given at the hearing it should be clear that the minor

[claimant] suffers at least the marked category problems with acquiring and

using information, i.e., communications, and attempting and completing tasks

which is concentration; in the alternative at least one of those categories is to the

extreme level of limitations. Further, there is a category of health and physical

well being which because of he asthma problems she has at least marked if not

extreme limitations. Therefore, a favorable ruling should be had in this case for

a child’s SSI disability benefits to be awarded from the application date of

February 10, 2003, to the indefinite future. 

(Doc. #7, p. 3). 

To support her contentions, the plaintiff offers no specific record citations, and very

little legal authority, a point not lost on the defendant. In opposition, the defendant states, in

part:

...Plaintiff fails to provide any further argument to support her contention that

she is entitled to child’s disability benefits. Furthermore, no where in her brief

Case 4:05-cv-04030-BES Document 9 Filed 05/15/06 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-7-

does Plaintiff point to any evidence to support her contentions, nor identify

exactly which impairments fall under the marked or extreme limitations.

We respectfully submit that this Court’s duty is not to comb through the record

where counsel has not provided specific references tied to her argument. See

S.E.C. v. Thomas, 965 F. 2d 825, 827 (10th Cir.1992) (where record is

voluminous, it is imperative that appealing party provide specific references to

record). When a Plaintiff fails to direct either the Court or the Defendant to the

record to support her point, the Commissioner respectfully requests that this

Court follow the examples set out in the Seventh Circuit. (“A litigant who fails

to press a point by supporting it with pertinent authority, or by showing it is

sound despite a lack of supporting authority or in the face of contrary authority,

forfeits the point.”) See Pelfresne v. Village of Williams Bay, 917 F.2d 1017,

1023 (7th Cir.1990). 

(Doc. #8, pp. 2-3). Nonetheless, the undersigned has reviewed the administrative record

thoroughly. 

With respect to the claimant’s asthma, the record documents that his medications and

treatments help the condition (T. 302, 133, 132, 280, 309, 134, 280, 281). The plaintiff testified

that claimant’s doctors opined that he “will grow out of it.” (T. 302). Plaintiff also appeared to

state that the claimant, on an average, required treatment either by a doctor or at a hospital

every three (3) months (T. 303). However, the testimony on this issue could also be construed

to reflect that the claimant required treatment by a doctor or at a hospital two (2) to three (3)

times, every three (3) months (T. 303). Notwithstanding, the record documents hospital visits

lasting longer than 24 hours, due to asthma, on November 1, 2002 (T. 126, 186) and January 1,

2004 (T. 154-199), only. Further, the plaintiff clearly testified that the claimant has a “bad

asthma attack” “probably once every three months” and a “regular” asthma attack once a

month” (T. 301). Both the plaintiff and claimant’s grandmother testified that the claimant’

medications help to control claimant’s attacks (T. 302, 309). Plaintiff also stated at the July

Case 4:05-cv-04030-BES Document 9 Filed 05/15/06 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-8-

hearing that claimant had not been to see his doctor since February (T. 304).

With respect to asthma, the regulations state:

103.03 Asthma. With:

A. FEV equal to o less than the value specified in table I or 103.02A; 1

Or

B. Attacks (as defined in 3.00C), in spite of prescribed treatment and requiring

physician intervention, occurring at least once every 2 months or at least six

times a year. Each inpatient hospitalization for longer than 24 hours for control

of asthma control counts as two attacks, and an evaluation period of at least 12

consecutive months must be used to determine the frequency of attacks;

Or

C. Persistent low-grade wheezing between acute attacks or absence of extended

symptom-free periods requiring daytime and nocturnal use of sympathomimetic

bronchodilators with one of the following:

1. Persistent prolonged expiration with radiographic or other appropriate

imaging techniques evidence of pulmonary hyperinflation or peribronchial

disease: or

2. Short courses of corticosteriods that average more than 5 days per

month for at least 3 months during a 12-month period;

D. Growth impairment as described under the criteria in 100.00.

20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, § 103.03.

The undersigned’s close review of the administrative record demonstrates that the ALJ’s

findings are supported by substantial evidence. The claimant’s medical records do not support

a finding that he meets the listing for asthma. Further, the evidence, as a whole, substantially

supports the ALJ’s determination that claimant’s only “severe” impairment, as contemplated by

the regulations, is asthma; it also supports the ALJ’s finding that the claimant’s asthma does not

medically or functionally equal a listing.

Conclusion:

Accordingly, we conclude that the decision of the ALJ, denying benefits to the plaintiff

on behalf of the claimant, is supported by substantial evidence of record and should be

Case 4:05-cv-04030-BES Document 9 Filed 05/15/06 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-9-

affirmed. The undersigned finds further that the plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed

with prejudice. 

ENTERED this 15 day of May, 2006. th

/s/ Bobby E. Shepherd 

HONORABLE BOBBY E. SHEPHERD 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:05-cv-04030-BES Document 9 Filed 05/15/06 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>