IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GRISELA RAMOS o/b/o : No. 4:CV-04-1411

KAYLA N. GARCIA, a minor, :

:

Plaintiff, : Complaint Filed 06/03/04

:

v. :

:

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, :

Commissioner of Social : (Judge Muir)

Security Administration, :

:

Defendant : (Magistrate Judge Mannion)

ORDER

July 25, 2005

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

On October 4, 2002, Plaintiff Grisela Ramos filed an

application for benefits on behalf of her granddaughter, Kayla N.

Garcia, a child under the age of eighteen. Garcia was born on

March 9, 1995. Ramos alleged in the application that Garcia was

disabled as of January 20, 2002, as a result of Attention Deficit

Hyperactivity Disorder and depression. After an administrative

hearing, an Administrative Law Judge denied Ramos’s application

in a written decision dated January 23, 2004. On April 29, 2004,

the Appeals Council denied Ramos’s request for review. 

 Ramos filed her action in this court on June 3, 2004. The

Clerk of Court assigned responsibility for this case to us but

referred it to United States Magistrate Judge Malachy E. Mannion

for preliminary consideration. 

Case 4:04-cv-01411-MM Document 20 Filed 07/25/05 Page 1 of 5
2

On July 1, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued a twenty-three

page report recommending that this action be remanded to the

Administrative Law Judge because the Administrative Law Judge’s

decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Objections to

that report and recommendation were due to have been filed by

July 18, 2005. On July 11, 2005, the Commissioner filed a letter

stating that she “waives the opportunity to respond to the Report

and Recommendation entered by the Magistrate Judge” in this case. 

On July 12, 2005, Ramos filed a substantially similar letter. No

other document has been filed in this case since the Magistrate

Judge filed his report and recommendation. The matter is ripe

for disposition.

When no objections are filed to the report of a Magistrate

Judge, we need only review that report as we in our discretion

deem appropriate. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 145, 151-52 (1985). 

In an appeal of the denial of Social Security Benefits, our

review of the Magistrate Judge’s report and the issues therein is

governed not only by that principle but also by 42 U.S.C.

§405(g). In such cases our review is less than plenary. A

decision of the Commissioner which is supported by substantial

evidence must be affirmed. E.g., Mason v. Shalala, 994 F.2d 1058,

1064 (3d Cir. 1993).

Substantial evidence is “‘more than a mere scintilla. It

means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as

Case 4:04-cv-01411-MM Document 20 Filed 07/25/05 Page 2 of 5
3

adequate to support a conclusion.’” Richardson v. Perales, 420

U.S. 389, 401 (1971)(quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. N.L.R.B.,

305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). Substantial evidence exists only “in

relationship to all the other evidence in the record,” Cotter v.

Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 706 (3d Cir. 1981), and “must take into

account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight.”

Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 488 (1971).

In his Report and Recommendation Magistrate Judge Mannion

concluded that the Administrative Law Judge’s decision is not

based on substantial evidence for two reasons. The first is that

a substantial number of pages of a significant exhibit were not

placed in the record. The documents at issue were a part of

Exhibit 5E, which included Garcia’s updated school records. That

information is essential to evaluate Garcia’s performance in

school, which is relevant to the ultimate determination of

whether she is entitled to benefits. 

The Magistrate Judge’s second reason for his conclusion

relates to the dosages and timing of Garcia’s medication. The

record indicates that the side effects of her medication are so

severe that her dosages are limited and she is medicated only for

the 8-hour period during which she is in school. Magistrate

Judge Mannion found that the Administrative Law Judge’s decision

does not reflect any consideration of Garcia’s condition and

impairments when she is not medicated; that period consists of

Case 4:04-cv-01411-MM Document 20 Filed 07/25/05 Page 3 of 5
4

the time during which Garcia is not in school, which is

approximately 16 hours per day. Based on the governing

regulations, an adequate assessment of Garcia’s condition would

include that period. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision is

deficient for failing to address that period. 

For the reasons noted above, Magistrate Judge Mannion

recommends that the matter be remanded. Our review of this case

confirms the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions and we have not been

presented with any reason to revisit them. For the reasons

stated in Magistrate Judge Mannion’s Report and Recommendation,

we are of the view that the Administrative Law Judge’s decision

is not supported by substantial evidence because it fails to

consider 1) all of Exhibit 5E, and 2) Garcia’s condition when she

is unable to take her medication because of medical reasons. 

Because we find no error in Magistrate Judge Mannion’s Report and

Recommendation and because no objections have been filed to it,

we will adopt the conclusions set forth therein as our own. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Mannion filed July 1, 2005, is adopted in toto.

2. This case is remanded to the Administrative Law Judge

for consideration of Exhibit 5E in its entirety, and

Garcia’s condition when she is unable to take her

medication because of medical reasons.

Case 4:04-cv-01411-MM Document 20 Filed 07/25/05 Page 4 of 5
5

3. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

 s/Malcolm Muir 

 MUIR, U.S. District Judge

MM:ga

Case 4:04-cv-01411-MM Document 20 Filed 07/25/05 Page 5 of 5