Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01933/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01933-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Jacobbi J. Wilson
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACOBBI J. WILSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner )

of Social Security, )

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:08cv01933 GSA

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S SOCIAL

SECURITY COMPLAINT 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Jacobbi J. Wilson (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of a final decision of the

Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying his application for child’s

supplemental security income, pursuant to Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The matter is

currently before the Court on the parties’ briefs, which were submitted, without oral argument, to

the Honorable Gary S. Austin, United States Magistrate Judge.1

//

//

//

//

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. (See Docs. 9 & 10.)

1

1

Case 1:08-cv-01933-GSA Document 18 Filed 02/16/10 Page 1 of 20
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

FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS2

Plaintiff filed his application on April 7, 2006. AR 108-113. After being denied both 3

initially and upon reconsideration, Plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative Law

Judge (“ALJ”). AR 74-79, 81-86. A hearing was held on January 8, 2008. AR 25-629. The

ALJ issued a decision denying benefits on March 27, 2008. AR 7-21. On October 13, 2008, the

Appeals Council denied review. AR 2-4.

 Hearing Testimony

ALJ Michael J. Haubner held a hearing on January 8, 2008, in Fresno, California. 

Plaintiff appeared and testified, and was represented by counsel. Additionally, Willie Wilson

testified as a witness. AR 25-62. 

Plaintiff testified that his date of birth was October 20, 1989, making him eighteen years

old at the time of the hearing. AR 27. He lives in Fresno with his parents. Two younger

siblings, his older brother and his girlfriend, and their baby, also live in the home. AR 36-37. 

His mother works full-time and his father is disabled. AR 34. Plaintiff has his own room at

home and makes his own bed every day and changes the sheets once a week. He has regular

chores that include cleaning the bathroom and living room, taking out the trash, and doing the

dishes. AR 36. He does not do laundry. AR 39.

Plaintiff had not yet graduated from high school but is in his senior year. He did not

know his grade point average. AR 31. He has flunked certain courses in the previous two years,

but has not had to repeat an entire year of education. AR 32. He is currently receiving special

education classes (“IEP”) and tutoring. AR 32-33. Plaintiff is a running back on Sunnyside High

School’s football team. AR 33. As a freshman, Plaintiff was suspended for one week for

fighting. AR 33-34.

About once a month, Plaintiff will babysit his brother’s one year old daughter. Two

hours in the longest period of time he has spent babysitting. AR 37. Besides playing football, he

References to the Administrative Record will be designated as “AR,” followed by the appropriate page

2

number.

Plaintiff reached the age of majority on October 20, 2007.

3

2

Case 1:08-cv-01933-GSA Document 18 Filed 02/16/10 Page 2 of 20
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

enjoys watching television. He estimates he watches television about three hours a day. AR 37. 

While there is a computer in the home, he does not use it. AR 37-38. He also plays video games

for about thirty minutes every day. AR 38.

While he does not have a driver’s license and never has, Plaintiff admitted driving “every

couple weeks” on average. AR 34-35. When he does drive, he drives a car with an automatic

transmission; he has been driving since the age of fourteen. AR 35. He has a cell phone and

talks on the phone every day. AR 39. 

Plaintiff has never had a job, nor has he applied for one. AR 35. He gets homework

every day and spends about a half an hour on it. Football practice lasts two hours. AR 38. He is

able to take care of his own personal grooming needs. AR 38. He does not cook meals, but can

make a sandwich or use the microwave. AR 39. 

For his asthma condition, Plaintiff uses an inhaler. He does not take any medication for

the condition in either pill or syrup form, and does not use a nebulizer. He has been treated in the

emergency room for breathing problems, but had not stayed overnight. AR 40. Plaintiff agreed

that his problems include back problems, asthma, learning disabilities, ADHD and borderline

intellectual functioning. AR 41.

When asked how much weight he was capable of lifting and carrying, he estimated he

could lift and carry 100 pounds. He could stand for fifteen minutes at one time, sit for fifteen to

twenty minutes at one time, and walk for about an hour before needing to rest. AR 41. Plaintiff

estimated he could pay attention and concentrate for about ten to fifteen minutes at a time, after

which he would rest his mind for about twenty minutes before being able to focus once again. 

AR 42. 

With regard to the tutoring he receives, Plaintiff indicated it is primarily in the subject of

English. He can read and write; he does not know his current reading level because no one has

told him. He can read a newspaper headline and the sports page. AR 43. His learning disability

involves forgetting instructions given by the teacher after five or ten minutes. He can read

instructions in writing, but cannot follow them on his own. He has to ask his teachers for an

explanation more than once, typically this occurs in math and science classes. AR 44. 

3

Case 1:08-cv-01933-GSA Document 18 Filed 02/16/10 Page 3 of 20
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

Economics can also cause him difficulty, but he does not receive tutoring in that subject. AR 45. 

His older brother will assist him with his homework. AR 45. He is patient and explains the

lesson word by word “like the teacher doesn’t.” AR 46. While his older brother may have to

explain an economics lesson more than once, Plaintiff is able to complete his assignment. AR

46. He does not know what grade he is earning in economics because the class has just started. 

AR 46. 

With specific regard to his asthma condition, Plaintiff testified that it is triggered by

others smoking around him and extreme heat. He has an asthma attack about three times a year. 

He indicated the inhaler will “[s]ometimes” control an asthma attack. AR 47. Plaintiff is not

treated by a psychiatrist or counselor for ADHD. AR 48.

When questioned by his attorney, Plaintiff admitted that he was no longer playing on the

football team because he was “kicked off” in the seventh week of the season for cursing a

teacher. Apparently his math teacher said something he did not agree with, so he “just went off

on her.” AR 48. He has applied for admission to Fresno City College because he hopes to play

football there. He spoke with the coach in December and was told the coach was very interested

because they needed a good, short, fast running back. At the time of the hearing, Plaintiff did not

yet know whether he had been accepted to junior college. AR 49-50. 

In addition to the incident involving his math teacher, Plaintiff indicated he was involved

in a fight with another student while playing basketball. The other student hit him in the head

with the basketball and started laughing. Plaintiff “just got mad and hit him.” AR 49. There

have been previous instances where he becomes angry with others and cannot stop himself from

fighting. He explained it is as if he goes “blank” and his “frustration takes over.” AR 50. This

is a problem at home as well and happens almost every day. Asked to give an example, Plaintiff

indicated that in November he and his dad “got into it” and he tried to fight his dad, but his dad

walked away. Plaintiff spend that night at his grandma’s house. AR 50. 

Plaintiff’s father, Willie Wilson, testified that his son is in special education classes

because he “has a learning disability because he ha[s] never gotten good grades.” AR 52. Mr.

Wilson indicated that when he assigns Plaintiff chores at home he cannot follow directions, he

4

Case 1:08-cv-01933-GSA Document 18 Filed 02/16/10 Page 4 of 20
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

“either won’t do it or he won’t like it.” AR 52. Mr. Wilson testified that Plaintiff was different

from other teenagers because he would “explode and get angry and cuss you out.” AR 52. This

behavior will occur about once a month. Plaintiff will leave the house and return after cooling

off for three to four hours. When he returns, it’s like nothing ever happened. There is nothing in

particular that triggers the episodes. AR 53. Mr. Wilson indicated he has not taken Plaintiff for

any kind of psychological or psychiatric counseling or treatment. AR 53. Neither has Plaintiff

received that type of treatment through the school, nor taken medication related to that condition. 

AR 54. 

According to Mr. Wilson, Plaintiff last suffered from an asthma attack the previous fall. 

Occasionally Plaintiff suffers from nose bleeds while he sleeps. He has suffered from nose

bleeds since he “was little” rather than only during the period he has played football. AR 54-55. 

With regard to Plaintiff’s learning disability, Mr. Wilson questioned findings that the

disability only affected two subjects because Plaintiff was getting F’s in all his classes. AR 55. 

Asked for examples regarding Plaintiff’s learning difficulties, Mr. Wilson indicated when the

family goes bowling, Plaintiff becomes frustrated because he cannot keep score. While the

machines also keep score, Mr. Wilson testified a person still has to be able to keep score. 

Plaintiff becomes frustrated and gets mad when the other kids tease him. AR 56. Plaintiff also

has difficulty accepting and following directions, and has since he was young. AR 56-57. 

Plaintiff’s coaches have indicated that he cannot remember the plays, and that is one

reason he did not play as much as he should have last year. AR 57. Mr. Wilson believes

Plaintiff should receive more help than what he is getting, and that Plaintiff needs help with his

“real bad anger problem.” AR 57.

Mr. Wilson indicated that Plaintiff does not do yard work around the house. AR 57. He

takes out the trash once a week and drives down the street about once a week. AR 58. Plaintiff

does not make his own bed, but he does change the sheets once a week. AR 58. He cleans the

bathroom and kitchen once a week. AR 58. He washes dishes once a week. AR 60. He also

babysits his niece about once a month for an hour or two. AR 58-59. While Plaintiff does play

video games, he does not do so every day and Mr. Wilson estimated it was about once a month. 

5

Case 1:08-cv-01933-GSA Document 18 Filed 02/16/10 Page 5 of 20
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

When asked about Plaintiff’s completion of his homework, Mr. Wilson indicated Plaintiff does

not do his homework every day. AR 59. Instead, he does it “once or twice a month.” AR 60. 

Plaintiff can cook a simple meal like eggs when he’s hungry, and Mr. Wilson indicated he will

prepare simple meals just about every day. AR 60. Lastly, Mr. Wilson indicated that his son

talks on the phone every day. AR 60.

According to Mr. Wilson, he does not understand his son when he is speaking to him

because they are on “two different levels,” but he did admit part of that could be that his son is a

teenager. AR 61.

Educational Record

The entire record was revealed in this regard, however, only the most relevant reports are

included in the Court’s summary below.

A psychological and guidance report completed in 1997 by School Psychologist Michelle

De La Torre included a twenty-five minute observation wherein it was witnessed Plaintiff was on

task ninety-five percent of the time, attempted to solve problems using his fingers to count and

did not talk or interact with other students. He was cooperative and well behaved and remained

on task during testing. It was recommended he be referred for psychoeducation evaluation due to 

concerns about slow academic progress. His ability was in the below average range and a severe

discrepancy was noted between his estimated ability and achievement in assessed areas. At the

time, he did not qualify for academic special education, but due to weakness should continue in

the “‘Reading Recovery’” program. AR 292-296.

A Speech Language Evaluation dated May 15, 2003, revealed slightly delayed language

skills, no discrepancy between expressive and receptive language skills, and normal articulation,

voice and fluency skills. Gaylene Thomas, M.A., speech and language specialist, found Plaintiff

did not meet the qualification guidelines for speech and language services within the Fresno

Unified School District, and recommended he be dismissed from speech therapy. AR 273-274. 

A January 5, 2006, Multidisciplinary Psychoeducational Report included the following

findings. Plaintiff’s reading skills were below average for comprehension. His writing skills

were average overall, but slightly below average in sentence construction and expression. His

6

Case 1:08-cv-01933-GSA Document 18 Filed 02/16/10 Page 6 of 20
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

math skills were poor and math calculation and reasoning were borderline. His language skills

were on the lower side of average and he appeared to be “decent at listening” and understanding

oral presentations. AR 134. It was noted he was willing and ready to work and performed

without exhibiting frustration during the testing. AR 135. His general memory skills were

average, as were his verbal memory skills. His visual memory skills were below average as were

the scores related to attention and concentration. AR 136. His adaptive behavior evaluation was

average overall. Low average scores were recorded in the communication skills subscale and a

low score on the functional academics subscale and work subscale were also recorded. AR 138. 

The report included an ADD evaluation scale used in the home. Willie Wilson’s report indicates

that Plaintiff does not appear to display excessive symptoms of ADHD at home. AR 139. 

Plaintiff’s phonological awareness skills were poor, his phonological memory skills were below

average and his rapid naming skills were average. A significant discrepancy was noted in the

area of auditory processing compared to his intellectual ability score. AR 141. It was observed

that Plaintiff demonstrated a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement in

the areas of mathematics calculation and reasoning and visual processing. The recommendations

included Plaintiff’s participation in an after school tutorial program to assist with homework,

possible extra time afforded in order to complete math assignments or testing, and the

development of goals and objectives. AR 143-144; see also AR 206-219.

In a March 20, 2006, email, one of Plaintiff’s instructors reported he was polite and able

to explain how to complete a problem correctly, but was unable to perform the calculation

correctly on his own. His basic algebra skills were weak. AR 118.

A Fresno Unified School District Individualized Education Program form of that same

date reveals plaintiff’s parents received multidisciplinary and psychoeducational reports. AR

120. Plaintiff had earned 85 credits and was passing English, history and his tutorial classes. 

However, he was failing all math classes and biology. He communicated clearly and listened to

instructions and his self-help skills were appropriate. Motor skills and social/emotional skills

were age appropriate, and his health was normal other than his need to wear corrective lenses. A

total of forty-eight classes had been missed and thirty tardies were reported. AR 121. Short term

7

Case 1:08-cv-01933-GSA Document 18 Filed 02/16/10 Page 7 of 20
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

goals included improving math skills and reading comprehension. At the time of assessment,

Plaintiff could perform math calculations at a sixty percent accuracy with the aid of a calculator,

and could read at a fifth grade level with an eighty percent accuracy in comprehension. AR 122. 

Specific learning disabilities were identified in math reasoning and calculation, and visual

processing. Plaintiff was permitted the use of a calculator for all math tasks, including exams,

and teachers were to ensure he understood lessons and provided opportunities for visual tracking

and recognition. AR 123. Plaintiff’s long range goals included a career as a sports announcer

and college education. AR 125. 

A health evaluation completed for the Fresno Unified School District by Registered

Nurse Kate Brown noted five suspensions for fighting and aggressive behavior, a history of

asthma and the need for Plaintiff to wear glasses in the classroom to correct his vision. He was

serious and cooperative, followed directions well and asked appropriate questions. His hygiene

and gait were normal. AR 132.

A May 8, 2006, Teacher Questionnaire completed by John Nichols noted slight or

obvious problems in the area of acquiring and using information (AR 165), a range of no

problem to obvious problem in the area of attending and completing tasks (AR 166), no problems

in the area of interacting and relating with others (AR 167) or moving about and manipulating

objects (AR 168), no problem or slight problem in the area of caring for himself (AR 169), and

asthma and allergies that are treated by medication, including Albuterol. AR 170.

A November 10, 2007, Teacher Questionnaire completed by John De La Cerda indicated

a mild problem regarding the ability to finish projects, ability to listen and remain attentive, and

to concentrate on schoolwork. No problems were recorded in the areas of ability to organize and

to play. AR 187. A mild problem was reported regarding Plaintiff’s ability to learn new skills

and keep up with peers, but no problems were recorded in the areas of ability to stay seated or

still, and ability to think before acting or acknowledge own mistake. Further, it was noted

Plaintiff’s parents were very supportive and he had no visual or hearing problems. AR 188. All

areas regarding speech and hand/eye coordination were normal. AR 189. Plaintiff participated

in group situations and got along with other children, was not verbally or physically aggressive

8

Case 1:08-cv-01933-GSA Document 18 Filed 02/16/10 Page 8 of 20
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

toward his peers, and had no difficulty expressing thoughts or feelings. He was cooperative,

polite and willing to converse with adults. He attended special education classes regarding

learning strategies. AR 190. He took care of his own needs, did not require special attention and

played football. AR 191. 

A grade report dated 2007 reflects an average grade point of 2.0 or less with regard to the

ninth, tenth and eleventh grades with the exception of what appears to be a summer session in the

eleventh grade wherein Plaintiff earned a 3.3 grade point average. AR 194. 

An IEP form regarding accommodations and modifications dated February 1, 2007,

indicates Plaintiff could use calculators and multiplication charts, was permitted more time for

testing in an individual or small group setting, and that directions could be read aloud to the

student and/or repeated. AR 252. 

Medical Record

Community Medical Center

On November 6, 1999, Plaintiff was seen in the emergency room for a shortness or breath

with a cough and burning sensation in the chest. The working diagnosis noted exacerbation of

asthma and allergic rhinitis. Medications and treatment were administered, and he was released. 

AR 328-332.

On January 14, 2004, Plaintiff was seen in the emergency room for smoke inhalation after

food was left burning on the stove. He was wheezing and reported chest pain. He was counseled

and diagnosed with mild carbon monoxide poisoning and sent home. AR 203-205. 

On March 14, 2004, Plaintiff was again seen in the emergency room for possible smoke

inhalation due to burning food on the stove. He complained his chest was burning. He was not

in respiratory distress, and was treated and released. AR 320-327. 

Plaintiff was seen for an ankle injury while playing football on November 14, 2004. Xrays were negative, a sprain was diagnosed and he was provided crutches. AR 201-202, 312-318. 

On September 29, 2006, Plaintiff was treated in the emergency room for rib pain

following a tackle during a football game. Lung sounds were good and x-rays were negative but a

9

Case 1:08-cv-01933-GSA Document 18 Filed 02/16/10 Page 9 of 20
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

clinical impression included a diagnosis of rib fracture. Pain medication was administered and

he was discharged. AR 333-344.

Internal Medicine Evaluation

In an August 2, 2006, report, board eligible internal medicine physician Rustom F.

Damania, M.D., indicated Plaintiff reported chronic low back pain since the age of thirteen. The

pain is consistent and present daily, but is sometimes “on and off.” A learning disability was

noted, as was his attendance in special education classes. He was accompanied by his mother

who apparently reported Plaintiff was forgetful and unable to multi-task. Plaintiff reported

bronchial asthma since the age of nine without hospitalization, yet with emergency room

treatment on a yearly basis. He used an Albuterol and Azmacort inhaler, but did not require

steroid, a nebulizer or oxygen. AR 220. 

Plaintiff lives with his parents and does not work. He denied the use of tobacco, alcohol

or illicit drugs. There was no history of any weight loss or fatigue, vision or hearing problem,

nor was there a history of any problem relating to the cardiac, gastrointestinal, genitourinary,

hematologic, skin, or neurological systems. AR 221. 

Dr. Damania’s physical examination showed a well-nourished, well developed young

male in no distress. Plaintiff was alert, cooperative and well-oriented. He was sixty-seven

inches tall and weighed 156 pounds. Range of motion in the neck was within normal limits,

head/ears/nose and throat were normal, lung sounds were symmetric and expiration was normal,

heart tones were good, there was no tenderness in the chest and the abdomen was soft and nontender. AR 222. An examination of the back revealed no tenderness to palpitation in the midline

or paraspinal areas, straight leg raising was negative at ninety degrees, no muscle spasm was

present and tone was equal throughout. Range of motion was within normal limits. AR 223. All

upper and lower extremities showed range of motion within normal limits, hand grip was normal

and finger approximation was intact, and no crepitus or patellar instability was noted in the

knees. AR 223-224. Pulses were normal, motor strength was 5/5, reflexes were normal and gait

was within normal limits. AR 224. 

10

Case 1:08-cv-01933-GSA Document 18 Filed 02/16/10 Page 10 of 20
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

Dr. Damania’s diagnostic impression included learning disability, bronchial asthma and

low back pain. He found Plaintiff was capable of lifting and carrying fifty pounds occasionally

and twenty-five pounds frequently. No postural, visual or manipulative limitations were

identified. AR 224-225.

Psychological Evaluation

A September 18, 2006, report prepared by William A. Spindell, Ph.D., FACFE, FABMP,

included the administration of the Bender Gestalt II, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale III and

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale tests. AR 226.

Plaintiff was sixteen years and ten months old, and was accompanied by his mother. He

was attending Sunnyside High School and was in the eleventh grade. His mother reported

Plaintiff weighed six pounds, eleven ounces at birth, walked at about one year and had an

otherwise typical childhood. He is the second oldest of four children. Plaintiff denied smoking

or drinking. AR 226. 

Dr. Spindell’s direct examination results note a well groomed, neatly dressed individual

with a well developed vocabulary. Plaintiff was fully oriented and cooperative throughout. His

remote and recent memory functions were within normal limits and he did not exhibit any

pressured speech, neologisms, or expressive or receptive problem that would suggest a

psychiatric disorder. AR 227. The Bender Visual Motor Gestalt II results with normal with no

evidence of angulation, rotation, perserveration or fragmentation. The global score was a 38 and

was not associated with a neurological impaired profile. A verbal IQ of 79, performance IQ of

77 and full scale IQ of 76 were recorded. The doctor’s diagnostic impression was borderline

intellectual functioning. AR 227. Dr. Spindell concluded plaintiff could “address the labor

market at this point and from a behavioral trajectory point of view, could probably address

several aspects of entry and intermediate activities.” AR 227. Plaintiff got along well with

others, did not need assistance with the activities of daily living, and could handle his own funds

if eligible. AR 227. With regard to work capacity, the doctor indicated Plaintiff was capable of

maintaining regular attendance, performing consistently without special attention or additional

supervision, could complete a normal workday or workweek, accept instructions from a

11

Case 1:08-cv-01933-GSA Document 18 Filed 02/16/10 Page 11 of 20
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

supervisor, interact with coworkers and the public and with typical stresses. He could not

perform detailed or complex tasks. AR 228. He had the ability to perform the activities of daily

living, maintain social relationships, sustain concentration, persistence and pace, and function

outside highly supportive arrangements, and was not limited by an episode of decompensation. 

AR 228; see also AR 229-230.

Function and Disability Reports

A function report prepared by Plaintiff’s father on April 7, 2006, indicates Plaintiff used

glasses to correct vision, and did not suffer from problems in hearing, speech, or daily activities. 

AR 145-147. With regard to communication, it was reported Plaintiff could answer and make

telephone calls, but did not deliver phones messages; could repeat stories but not tell jokes or

riddles accurately. He was able to explain why he did something, talk with family and friends

and ask for what he needs. AR 148. Mr. Wilson indicated however that Plaintiff was unable to

understand, carry out and remember simple instructions. AR 149. It was noted that Plaintiff did

not drive a car. AR 149. While he generally got along with his parents and other adults,

including teachers, and played team sports, Plaintiff did not have friends his own age or make

new friends, nor did he get along with his brothers and sisters. It was noted that Plaintiff’s

friends are typically younger than he is, and that he gets involved in physical and verbal fights

with his brother and sisters. AR 150. Regarding Plaintiff’s ability care for his personal needs,

Mr. Wilson indicated Plaintiff could take care of personal hygiene matters, help around the

house, get to school on time, take medication and avoid accidents. However, Plaintiff could not

wash and put away his clothes, cook a meal, study and do homework, use public transportation,

accept criticism, keep out of trouble, obey rules or ask for help when needed. Mr. Wilson

explained Plaintiff is an angry child with a bad temper. AR 151. He cannot complete homework

or chores, but can pay attention and work on arts and crafts, keep busy on his own, and finish

things he starts. AR 152. 

Consultant Richard Betcher, M.D., prepared a Childhood Disability Evaluation Form on

October 31, 2006, following a review of the records. He noted Plaintiff’s impairments of asthma

and learning disabilities. The doctor found the impairments were severe but did not meet or

12

Case 1:08-cv-01933-GSA Document 18 Filed 02/16/10 Page 12 of 20
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

equal the listings. AR 234-235. With regard to acquiring and using information, attending and

completing tasks, interacting with others and caring for himself, and health and physical well

being, Dr. Betcher found Plaintiff’s limitations to be less than marked. He noted no limitation

with regard to moving about or manipulating objects. AR 236-237. Additional consultant M. C.

Vea concurred with Dr. Betcher’s evaluation on November 1, 2006. AR 235.

A second Childhood Disability Evaluation Form was completed by L. T. Luu, M.D., on

January 29, 2007. With regard to Plaintiff’s impairment of borderline intellectual functioning,

Dr. Luu reported the impairment to be severe but noted it did not meet or equal a listing

impairment. AR 241. Less than marked limitations were noted in the areas of acquiring and

using information, and attending and completing tasks. No limitations were identified in the

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

self, and health and physical well being. AR 243. 

In an undated Child Disability report, Mr. Wilson reported Plaintiff’s disabilities were

related to learning, and asthma. Plaintiff became disabled on October 20, 1994, but his

disabilities do not cause pain. He has not been treating for emotional or mental problems. AR

158. He uses an asthma inhaler for asthma related symptoms. AR 159. At the time of the

report, Plaintiff was in tenth grade at Sunnyside High School and was in special education

classes. AR 161.

An undated and unsigned Disability Report completed by Plaintiff himself references no

new illnesses or injuries, continued use of Albuterol and a steroid inhaler that cause fatigue, the

ability to care for his own needs with reminders, and the fact he was not employed. AR 178-186.

SCOPE OF REVIEW

Congress has provided a limited scope of judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision

to deny benefits under the Act. In reviewing findings of fact with respect to such determinations,

the Court must determine whether the decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial

evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g). Substantial evidence means “more than a mere scintilla,”

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 402 (1971), but less than a preponderance. Sorenson v.

Weinberger, 514 F.2d 1112, 1119, n. 10 (9th Cir. 1975). It is “such relevant evidence as a

13

Case 1:08-cv-01933-GSA Document 18 Filed 02/16/10 Page 13 of 20
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

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson, 402 U.S. at

401. The record as a whole must be considered, weighing both the evidence that supports and

the evidence that detracts from the Commissioner’s conclusion. Jones v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 993,

995 (9th Cir. 1985). In weighing the evidence and making findings, the Commissioner must

apply the proper legal standards. E.g., Burkhart v. Bowen, 856 F.2d 1335, 1338 (9th Cir. 1988). 

This Court must uphold the Commissioner’s determination that the claimant is not disabled if the

Secretary applied the proper legal standards, and if the Commissioner’s findings are supported by

substantial evidence. See Sanchez v. Sec’y of Health and Human Serv., 812 F.2d 509, 510 (9th

Cir. 1987). 

REVIEW

Child Disability Standard

The childhood disability standard was changed by the Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Act of 1996. Pub. L. No. 104-193, § 211, 110 Stat. 2105 (1996), amending 42

U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). The amendment provides: 

[A]n individual under the age of 18 shall be considered disabled . . . if that individual has

a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, which results in marked or

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 12 months.

42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(C)(I). 

To apply the new statutory standard, the Commissioner now uses a three-step sequential

evaluation procedure for determining whether a child’s impairments result in marked and severe

functional limitations and is therefore disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(b)-(d) (2001). The

amendment eliminated the fourth step in the disability analysis: determining whether the child

had an impairment or impairments of comparable severity to that which would disable an adult. 

This new standard applies to new claims filed on or after August 22, 1996, and to new claims not

yet finally adjudicated on that date. 42 U.S.C. § 1382c. A claim is not finally adjudicated if an

administrative or judicial appeal was pending on or after that date regarding a claim that has been

denied in whole. Id.; see Jamerson v. Chater, 112 F.3d 1064, 1065 n.1 (9th Cir. 1997). 

14

Case 1:08-cv-01933-GSA Document 18 Filed 02/16/10 Page 14 of 20
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

The relevant inquiry at step one is whether the child is engaged in substantial gainful

activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(b). If not, step two requires the fact finder to determine whether

the child has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments. 20 C.F.R. §

416.924(c). Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating a severe impairment. 20 C.F.R. §

416.924. If the impairment is a “slight abnormality or a combination of slight abnormalities that

cause no more than a minimal functional limitation,” the Commissioner will find that the child

does not have a severe impairment and therefore is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(c). 

Step three requires determining whether the severe impairment meets or equals in severity

any impairment that is listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. §

416.924(d). If such an impairment exists, the Commissioner must find the child disabled. Id. If

the child’s impairment does not meet or medically equal any listing, then the Commissioner must

determine if the limitations caused by the impairment functionally equal a listing in the Listing of

Impairments. Id. To do so, the Commissioner will assess all of the functional limitations caused

by the child’s impairments in six domains: (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 self; and (6) health and physical well being. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(a)-

(b). To functionally equal a listing, the impairments must result in marked limitations in two

domains of functioning or an “extreme” limitation in one domain. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(a). 

Where the final decision of the Commissioner was proper under the old standard, it must

be upheld under the new standard, as the new standard is more stringent. Jamerson v. Chater,

112 F.3d at 1068. 

Adult Disability Standard

In order to qualify for benefits, a claimant must establish that he is unable to engage in

substantial gainful activity due to a medically determinable physical or mental impairment 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)(A). A claimant must show that he has a physical or mental impairment of

such severity that he is not only unable to do her previous work, but cannot, considering his age,

education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which

15

Case 1:08-cv-01933-GSA Document 18 Filed 02/16/10 Page 15 of 20
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

exists in the national economy. Quang Van Han v. Bowen, 882 F.2d 1453, 1456 (9th Cir. 1989). 

The burden is on the claimant to establish disability. Terry v. Sullivan, 903 F.2d 1273, 1275 (9th

Cir. 1990).

In an effort to achieve uniformity of decisions, the Commissioner has promulgated

regulations which contain, inter alia, a five-step sequential disability evaluation process. 20

C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 (a)-(f), 416.920 (a)-(f) (1994).

In this case, the ALJ found Plaintiff (1) was a minor at the time of application and

attained majority on October 20, 2007; (2) has never engaged in substantial gainful activity; (3)

has the severe impairments of borderline intellectual functioning, a history of ADHD and a

history of a learning disorder; but (4) the impairments do not meet or medically equal any of the

listed impairments. Thus, the ALJ found Plaintiff was not under a disability as defined in the

Social Security Act. Further, the ALJ determined that despite having no past relevant work, as

an adult, Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform simple repetitive tasks

without exertional limitation. AR 10-21.

Plaintiff contends the ALJ committed reversible error at step three of the child’s

sequential disability analysis, and thus, this Court should reverse and remand for the payment of

benefits. (Doc. 13 at 3.)

DISCUSSION

A. Step Three of the Child Disability Analysis

Plaintiff asserts the ALJ did not properly conduct the required analysis for child

disability. He argues in order to functionally equal a listed impairment, his severe impairments

must result in marked limitations in two domains of functioning or an extreme limitation in one

domain. Further, Plaintiff asserts that because his performance on the Wechsler intelligence test

found an extreme limitation in the domain of acquiring and using information, he is entitled to

benefits. Further, he argues the ALJ never mentioned the Wechsler test scores and thus did not

sufficiently explain why he chose not to rely upon the scores, resulting in legal error. (Doc. 13 at

7-11.) The Commissioner replies that the ALJ considered all medical evidence and correctly

determined his finding of less than marked limitations in acquiring and using information,

16

Case 1:08-cv-01933-GSA Document 18 Filed 02/16/10 Page 16 of 20
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

attending and completing tasks, and interacting and relating to others. More specifically, the

Commissioner asserts the ALJ’s finding of less than marked limitation, notwithstanding the

Wechsler scores, is proper because the ALJ relied upon the substantial evidence provided by Drs.

Betcher, Vea and Luu. (Doc. 17 at 7-10.) 

Step three of the sequential analysis requires determining whether the severe impairment

meets or equals in severity any impairment that is listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P,

Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(d). If such an impairment exists, the Commissioner must find

the child disabled. Id. If the disease or impairments does not meet or medically equal any

listing, the Commissioner must decide whether it functionally equals a listing. 20 C.F.R. §

416.926a(a). Functional equivalence to a listing is established where plaintiff has an “extreme”

limitation in one domain of functioning, or “marked” limitations in two or more of the domains

of functioning. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(a). The domains used are: acquiring and using

information; attending and completing tasks; interacting and relating with others; moving about

and manipulating objects; caring for one’s self; and health and physical well being. 20 C.F.R. §

416.926a(b). A “marked” limitation is one that interferes seriously with the ability to

independently initiate, sustain, or complete activities. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(e). “Marked”

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

ALJ Haubner found, in pertinent part:

After considering the evidence of record, I find that the claimant’s

medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to produce

only some of the alleged symptoms, and that the statements concerning the

intensity, persistence and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms are not

entirely credible . . ..

On two occasions, the State agency medical consultants concluded that in

the six domains discussed below, the claimant has less than marked limitation in

the first and second domains, no limitations in the fourth, and none-to-less than

marked limitation in the third, fifth and sixth domains. I agree with these

assessments.

Consultative psychologist Dr. Spindell, who examined the claimant when

he was 16 years, 10 months old, noted that the claimant intended to attend college. 

Obtained IQ scores were Verbal 79, Performance 77 and Full Scale 76, which

produced a diagnosis of borderline intellectual functions. Dr. Spindell noted that

the claimant was articulate, motivated and apparently doing reasonably well in his

Special Education classes and concluded that the claimant could “address the

labor market at this point and from a behavior trajectory point of view, could

probably address several aspects of entry and intermediate activities.” The

claimant was independent with his activities of daily living, got along with his

17

Case 1:08-cv-01933-GSA Document 18 Filed 02/16/10 Page 17 of 20
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

family, and could hand[le] money. The only limitation Dr. Spindell noted was

that the claimant would not be able to perform detailed and complex tasks.

In terms of the six domains of function, I find the following regarding

limitations caused by the claimant’s impairments:

a. Acquiring and Using Information

This domain considers how well a child is able to acquire or learn

information, and how well a child uses the information he has learned.

The regulations provide that an adolescent . . . without an impairment should

continue to demonstrate in middle and high school what he has learned in academic

assignments . . .. The child should also be able to use what he has learned in daily living

situations without assistance (e.g., going to the store, using the library, and using public

transportation). The child should be able to comprehend and express both simple and

complex ideas, using increasingly complex language (vocabulary and grammar) in

learning and daily living situations (e.g., to obtain and convey information and ideas). 

The child should also learn to apply these skills in practical ways that will help him enter

the workplace after finishing school (e.g., carrying out instructions, preparing a job

application, or being interviewed by a potential employer).

Social Security regulation 20 CFR 416.926a(g)(3) sets forth some

examples of limited functioning in this domain that children of different ages

might have. The examples do not apply to a child of a particular age; rather, they

cover a range of ages and developmental periods. In addition, the examples do

not necessarily describe “marked” or “extreme” limitation in the domain. Some

examples of difficulty children could have in acquiring and using information

area: (I) does not understand words about space, size, or time . . . (ii) cannot

rhyme words or the sounds in words; (iii) has difficulty recalling important things

learned in school yesterday; (iv) has difficulty solving mathematics questions or

computing arithmetic answers; or (v) talks only in short, simple sentences, and has

difficulty explaining what he means.

The claimaint has less than marked limitation in acquiring and using information. 

A few “obvious” problems were noted in the first Teacher Questionnaire, and the

claimant qualified for and was in special education, but the more recent Teacher

Questionnaire listed generally good comments which were supported by the State agency

evaluation discussed above. The claimant testified that he has never had to repeat an

entire year of school, and his father stated that his son is only in 2 special education

classes.

AR 15-16, emphasis in original & internal citations omitted.

While the ALJ’s findings do not specificcally reference the Wechsler test scores, his

findings do expressly reference exhibit “2F, p. 10" - or page 215 of the administrative record -

which includes the recommendations of School Psychologist James Russo and School

Psychology Intern Karin Kawagoe following testing of Plaintiff, including the Wechsler

Individual Achievement Test administered by Frank Capalare “RSP” on November 21, 2005. 

The ALJ explained that he opted to rely on “the more recent Teacher Questionnaire” and

disability evaluation. Teacher John De La Cerda indicated in November 2007 that Plaintiff had

no problem or mild problems in the following areas: completing tasks; listening and remaining

attentive; organization; concentration on schoolwork; playing; staying seated and still; thinking

18

Case 1:08-cv-01933-GSA Document 18 Filed 02/16/10 Page 18 of 20
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

before acting; ability to learn new skills and keep up with peers; and ability to acknowledge

mistakes. It was noted Plaintiff did not have any difficulty expressing his thoughts or feelings,

and that he was cooperative and polite, could take care of his own needs and did not require

special supervision in the classroom. AR 187-193. Dr. Luu completed a childhood disability

evaluation form on January 29, 2007, and found less than marked limitations in the four of the

six domains, and no limitation with regard the remaining four domains. In the domain of

acquiring and using information, Dr. Luu noted “Per TQ 4/10 obvious problems, 6/10 sligh[t]

problems” and in the attending and completing tasks domain, Dr. Luu noted “Per TQ. 4/13

obvious problems, 5/13 slight problems, 3/13 no problem.” AR 243. 

In sum, the ALJ provided an explanation for his findings; he elected to credit the more

recent questionnaire and evaluation, coupled with the fact Plaintiff was receiving special

education instruction in just two classes rather than all classes, and had not had to repeat a year in

school. 

Examining Opinion of Dr. Damania

Plaintiff contends the ALJ’s RFC assessment is contrary to and ignores the medical

opinion contained in Dr. Damania’s report. He reasons the ALJ failed to properly consider the

functional limitations assessed and the ALJ did not offer a legitimate reason for discounting it. 

More particularly, Dr. Damania limited Plaintiff to lifting and carrying fifty pounds occasionally

and twenty-five pounds frequently, yet the ALJ’s finding involves no exertional limitation. (Doc.

13 at 11-13.) The Commissioner replies that any error was harmless because Dr. Damania’s

opinion regarding Plaintiff’s functional limitations concerning lifting and carrying would result

in a finding that Plaintiff could perform the full range of medium unskilled work. Due to

Plaintiff’s young age and level of education, a medium unskilled RFC would result in a finding

of not disabled. Moreover, application of the Grids would result in the same findings even were

Dr. Damania’s opinion fully credited. (Doc. 17 at 10-11.)

An ALJ must provide “clear and convincing” reasons for rejecting the uncontroverted

opinion of an examining physician. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830-831 (9th Cir. 1995)

(citations omitted). The opinion of an examining doctor, even if contradicted by another doctor,

19

Case 1:08-cv-01933-GSA Document 18 Filed 02/16/10 Page 19 of 20
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

can only be rejected for specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence

in the record. Id. (citing Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1043 (9th Cir.1995)).

The ALJ’s RFC found no restriction in the area of daily living, mild difficulty in

maintaining social functioning and maintaining concentration, persistence and pace, progressing

to moderate difficulties with detailed or complex tasks. 

Here however, ALJ Haubner’s findings do not “simply ignore” Dr. Damania’s opinion as

Plaintiff suggests. The ALJ referenced Dr. Damania’s opinion when he addressed Plaintiff’s

severe impairments at pages 13 and 14 of the administrative record: “Exhibit 3F.” Further, the

ALJ expressly stated “I do not find the consultative examiner’s opinion that claimant is limited to

medium exertion consistent with the evidence discussed above, including the examiner’s own

completely normal physical examination. That medium limitation is therefore given little

weight.” AR 13, n. 1, emphasis added. A lack of supporting clinical findings is a valid reason

for rejecting a treating physician's opinion. Magallenes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir.

1989). Thus, ALJ Haubner provided a specific and legitimate reason for discounting Dr.

Damania’s opinion regarding Plaintiff’s exertional limitations.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the ALJ’s decision is supported by

substantial evidence in the record as a whole and is based on proper legal standards. 

Accordingly, this Court DENIES Plaintiff’s appeal from the administrative decision of the

Commissioner of Social Security. The Clerk of this Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in

favor of Defendant Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security and against Plaintiff,

Jacobbi J. Wilson.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 16, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20

Case 1:08-cv-01933-GSA Document 18 Filed 02/16/10 Page 20 of 20