IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

BARBARA HENNIS

o/b/o J.W. (a minor), 

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action 2:18-cv-422

Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff, Barbara Hennis, acting on behalf of J.W., a minor, filed this action seeking review 

of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying J.W.’s application for supplemental 

security income. For the reasons that follow, the Commissioner’s non-disability finding is 

REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED to the Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge 

under Sentence Four of § 405(g).

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is J.W.’s maternal grandmother, who filed an application for supplemental 

security income on his behalf on June 24, 2014, alleging he became disabled on September 1, 

2011, due to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”), anxiety disorder, social phobia, 

and post-traumatic stress disorder. (Doc. 14, Tr. 27, 243, PAGEID #: 77, 296). After initial 

administrative denials of the claim, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) held a hearing on March 

9, 2017. (Tr. 48–88, PAGEID #: 98–138). Both Plaintiff and J.W. testified. (Id.). The ALJ 

issued a decision denying benefits on June 29, 2017. (Tr. 24–41, PAGEID #: 74–91).
2

Plaintiff filed this action on May 1, 2018 (Doc. 1), and the Commissioner filed the 

administrative record on August 13, 2018 (Doc. 14). Plaintiff filed a Statement of Specific Errors 

(Doc. 19), the Commissioner responded (Doc. 20), and no reply was filed.

A. Personal Background

J.W. was born on June 16, 2005 (Tr. 27, PAGEID #: 77), and Plaintiff has had custody of 

him since June 29, 2011, because of his mother’s drug use. (Tr. 240, PAGEID #: 293; Tr. 73, 

PAGEID #: 123). 

B. Hearing Testimony

At the time of the administrative hearing, J.W. was 11 years old. (Tr. 56, PAGEID #: 106). 

J.W. testified that he lives in a two-bedroom home with his grandparents and pets. (Tr. 57, 

PAGEID #: 107). He stated that he likes to play on the computer and play outside with friends. 

(Id.) J.W. reported that he has four friends in his neighborhood, including his best friend. (Tr. 58, 

PAGEID #: 108). 

J.W. testified that he is “[s]ometimes” able to take care of himself in the morning, including 

brushing his own hair, washing his hands, brushing his teeth, and making breakfast. (Tr. 58–59, 

PAGEID #: 108–09). For chores, he testified that he cleans his room and sometimes feeds his 

cats. (Tr. 60, PAGEID #: 110). He further stated that he cannot tie his own shoes or cook on the 

stove. (Tr. 58–60, PAGEID #: 108–10). J.W. testified that he takes medicine for tics. (Tr. 61, 

PAGEID #: 111).

J.W. testified that he is in fifth grade and that his favorite subjects are recess and lunch. 

(Tr. 61–62, PAGEID #: 111–12). J.W. testified that: his grades are “getting better”; he likes to 

read and draw; and his least favorite subject is math. (Tr. 62–63, PAGEID #: 112–13). He 
3

reported, however, that he struggles to complete his daily homework and “[s]ometimes” his 

grandma forces him to complete his homework, but not often. (Tr. 63–64, PAGEID #: 113–14). 

J.W. testified that he generally gets along with kids in his class, except for one student who 

is “always messing with other students.” (Tr. 64–65, PAGEID #: 114–15). He likes all of his 

teachers. (Tr. 65, PAGEID #: 65). J.W. reported that he has not been suspended during the current 

school year but had been suspended the previous school year for four days. (Id.). 

Plaintiff then testified regarding J.W.’s development and his physical and mental 

impairments. She reported that J.W. does not do a lot of chores and cannot tie his shoes. (Tr. 67, 

PAGEID #: 117). Plaintiff testified that she and her husband have to give J.W. medication every 

morning and night because he forgets to take it on his own. (Id.). Plaintiff reported that she picks 

out J.W.’s clothes every night and that she has to supervise him getting ready in the morning. (Tr. 

67–68, PAGEID #: 117–18). If she does not tell him repeatedly to perform basic personal care, 

J.W. forgets. (Tr. 68, PAGEID #: 118). 

Regarding J.W.’s performance at school, Plaintiff testified that “[t]his year he’s doing 

pretty good.” (Tr. 69, PAGEID #: 119). She stated that his performance in school the previous 

year had been poor and that he still struggles to pay attention and stay on task. (Id.). Plaintiff 

testified that J.W.’s medications have improved his behavior. (Tr. 69–70, PAGEID #: 119–20). 

Further, she testified that Plaintiff still has a rough time with school work: His handwriting is hard 

to read; he struggles to concentrate; and it is “almost impossible” for him to write a sentence 

without constant supervision and direction. (Tr. 70, PAGEID #: 120). Plaintiff reported that J.W. 

struggles the most with math, which she described as “a disaster for him,” and she testified that he 

is below average in social studies and science. (Tr. 71, PAGEID #: 121). 
4

Plaintiff described J.W.’s relationship with her and J.W.’s mother. According to Plaintiff, 

when J.W. was young, his mother used crack cocaine and engaged in prostitution. (Tr. 72, 

PAGEID #: 122). J.W.’s mother lost her parental rights to J.W., and J.W. does not like to have 

contact with her. (Id.). 

Plaintiff testified that J.W. feels secure with her and her husband but that he is “not real big 

on friends.” (Tr. 74, PAGEID #: 124). She stated that he plays with his friends a couple of times 

per week. (Id.). 

Plaintiff described J.W.’s physical and mental impairments. She testified that J.W. has 

ADHD and PTSD and that he suffers from tics that cause involuntary verbal expression and 

physical movements. (Tr. 75–76, PAGEID #: 125–26). J.W. takes medication to address these 

impairments and also takes additional medication to help him sleep and deal with potential 

hallucinations. (Tr. 76, PAGEID #: 126). 

Under questioning from the ALJ, Plaintiff testified regarding J.W.’s relationship with his 

friends. She testified that his best friend is three years younger than him. (Tr. 78, PAGEID #: 128). 

Further, she stated that J.W. often fights with his other friends that live in his neighborhood. (Tr. 

78–79, PAGEID #: 128–29). 

Plaintiff testified that J.W.’s behavior at school had improved, but that he still has the same 

difficulties with his attention and staying on task. (Tr. 81–82, PAGEID #: 131–32). The school 

provides a teacher’s aide to work specifically with J.W., and he attends two special education 

classes. (Tr. 82, PAGEID #: 132).

C. Educational Evidence

J.W. has had an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) since kindergarten. (Tr. 255, 

PAGEID #: 309). As reflected in his 2013 IEP review, he was diagnosed with Attention Deficit 
5

Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”). (Id.). The evaluator observed that J.W. had below average 

motor skills (Tr. 258, PAGEID #: 312), and required occupational therapy at school to develop his 

fine motor skills, (Tr. 256, PAGEID #: 310). Further, the evaluator opined that J.W. was unable 

to complete schoolwork without frequent prompting because he was easily distracted. (Tr. 262, 

PAGEID #: 316). Generally, J.W. required “15-17 reminders” to complete a 30-minute 

assignment. (Id.). 

J.W. also struggled to control his anger. (Tr. 264, PAGEID #: 318). He frequently got 

frustrated and refused to follow directions, pounded his desk, and yelled at classmates. (Id.). The 

evaluator stated these behaviors were atypical for second-graders. (Id.). The evaluator found that 

J.W. qualified for special education services because of his ADHD, emphasizing J.W.’s “extreme 

difficulty” functioning in a regular classroom. (Tr. 318, PAGEID #: 372).

The observations of J.W.’s teachers supported this conclusion. His teachers noted that 

Plaintiff was easily angered and upset if he did not get his way and that he struggled to regain 

focus after he became upset. (Tr. 346, PAGEID #: 400). As a result, he struggled to follow 

instructions. (Id.). Further, he bossed around his peers and struggled to make friends. (Id.).

J.W. was also suspended on two separate occasions in 2013 and 2014 after getting in 

physical altercations with other students. (Tr. 372, PAGEID #: 426; Tr. 378, PAGEID #: 432). 

On both occasions, he was suspended from school for a day. (Id.).

Between November 2014 and April 2017, three elementary school teachers completed 

questionnaires regarding J.W.’s functional capabilities. (Tr. 408–09, PAGEID #: 462–63; 

Tr. 1202–05; PAGEID #: 1259–62). J.W.’s third grade teacher, J.K., indicated that he needed 

academic accommodations and a separate room for him to attend small group instruction “or to 

cool down.” (Tr. 408, PAGEID #: 462). She opined that J.W. was average in reading but below 
6

average in the following areas: attention span and concentration in class, ability to follow 

instructions, ability to work independently of teacher supervision, ability to understand and 

complete assignments on time, ability to respond to changes of routine, ability to respond to 

criticism, and ability to progress in learning the skills involved in writing and mathematics. (Id.). 

J.K. further observed that J.W. had difficulty in functioning “in unstructured areas,” including 

recess and lunch. (Tr. 409, PAGEID #: 463). According to her, J.W. wanted to tell other students 

what to do and frequently expressed concern that other people were staring at him. (Id.).

J.W.’s fourth grade language arts teacher, A.K., stated that he needed accommodations for 

writing because his physical handwriting was illegible. (Tr. 1204, PAGEID #: 1261). Like J.K., 

she found that J.W. was below average in a number of areas, including: attention span and 

concentration in class, ability to follow instructions, ability to work independently of teacher 

supervision, ability to understand and complete assignments on time, ability to respond to 

criticism, and ability to progress in learning the skills involved in writing and mathematics. (Id.). 

With respect to his attention span, A.K. specifically noted that J.W. “needs an aide to sit next to 

him to complete anything and stay focused.” (Id.). She also opined that J.W. was average in his 

ability to respond to changes of routine and “average/high average” in reading. (Id.). With respect 

to J.W.’s behavioral issues, A.K. observed that J.W. was “[v]ery paranoid, says hears voices, and 

that people are always looking at him.” (Tr. 1205, PAGEID #: 1262). She further stated that J.W. 

was argumentative with his peers and was constantly worried that they were making fun of him. 

(Id.). A.K. noted that J.W. did not exhibit age-appropriate hygiene and self-care and that his 

appearance was often disheveled. (Id.). She also observed that J.W. had ADHD and weak motor 

skills. (Id.). 
7

A.R., J.W.’s fifth grade teacher, submitted a similar evaluation. (Tr. 1202–03, PAGEID #: 

1259–60). She noted that J.W. used a computer instead of writing by hand, received small group 

instruction, and saw an intervention specialist for math and writing. (Tr. 1202, PAGEID #: 1259). 

A.R. opined that J.W. was very weak in his ability to follow instructions, to work independently 

of teacher supervision, and to understand and complete assignments on time; weak in his attention 

span and concentration in class and in his ability to respond to criticism; below average in his math 

and writing skills; average in his ability to respond to changes of routine; and above average in his 

reading abilities. (Id.). She stated that J.W. was “somewhat aggressive when defending a friend” 

and that he was below average in his ability to get along with his peers. (Tr. 1203, PAGEID #: 

1260). According to A.R., J.W. often believed other students’ actions were malicious when they 

were not. (Id.). She also noted that J.W. needed directions provided three or more times “before 

taking appropriate steps” and that he often clenched his jaw and exhibited facial tics. (Id.).

D. Relevant Medical Evidence

During the relevant time-period, J.W.’s treating physician was Marilyn Peters, M.D., a 

child psychologist. In October 2013, Dr. Peters met with J.W., Plaintiff, and J.W.’s grandfather 

for a pharmacologic management evaluation. (Tr. 1246–1248, PAGEID #: 1304–06). She noted 

that Plaintiff was being treated for ADHD and dyssomnia with a history of adjustment and mood 

problems. (Tr. 1246, PAGEID #: 1304). Dr. Peters reported that Plaintiff was doing “very well” 

in second grade, but was still impulsive and easily distracted. (Id.). She further stated that his 

social skills were “much improved.” (Id.). Dr. Peter diagnosed Plaintiff with ADHD and 

dyssomnia and noted the need to monitor J.W. for mood disorder based on his history of adjustment 

disorder with mixed disturbances of emotions and conduct. (Tr. 1247, PAGEID #: 1305).
8

In June 2014, Dr. Peters stated that J.W. had been having “a bit more difficulty with 

ADHD,” but that Plaintiff believed he was “functioning very well,” noting that he was socializing 

with other children in the neighborhood and performing chores. (Tr. 1257–58, PAGEID #: 1315–

16). Dr. Peters observed that J.W. was more “interactive,” “playful,” “relaxed,” and “motivated” 

than at prior appointments. (Tr. 1247, PAGEID #: 1315). 

On November 9, 2015, Joe Hatcher, Ph.D., a clinical child psychologist completed a 

psychological assessment of J.W. (Tr. 1280–85, PAGEID #: 1338–43). Dr. Hatcher evaluated 

J.W. over the course of two sessions. (Tr. 1280, PAGEID #: 1338). He noted that J.W. was 

appropriately dressed and groomed and that he put forth good effort during the assessment. (Id.). 

Dr. Hatcher observed that J.W. displayed periodic motor tics when discussing his experience with 

hallucinations. (Id.). According to Dr. Hatcher, J.W. experienced periods of intense anxiety and 

vigilance that were “impairing.” (Tr. 1281, PAGEID #: 1339). He also noted that J.W. 

experienced visual hallucinations but did not exhibit any other symptoms of psychosis. (Id.). 

Stress and anxiety exacerbated J.W.’s physical tics. (Id.). 

Dr. Hatcher diagnosed J.W. with ADHD, anxiety disorder, and tic disorder. (Id.). He 

further noted the need to rule out PTSD. (Id.). Because J.W. displayed “severe symptoms and 

problematic behavior at home and school,” Dr. Hatcher recommended that he receive additional 

services at school and at home. (Id.).

After changing practices, Dr. Peters continued to treat J.W. In December 2015, Dr. Peters 

stated that she had started J.W. on a new medication, Risperdal, in October due to his aggressive 

behavior and overactivity at school. (Tr. 1296, PAGEID #: 1354). Since J.W. ran out of Risperdal, 

he had begun experiencing sleep-related visual hallucinations and physical tics. (Id.). J.W. 

reported that he was “much happier” on Risperdal. (Id.). In addition to ADHD and dyssomnia, 
9

Dr. Peters diagnosed J.W. with chronic motor tic disorder and noted that he had problems 

socializing with his peers and academically. (Tr. 1299, PAGEID #: 1357). 

On January 19, 2016, Dr. Peters completed a questionnaire on medical and functional 

equivalence. (Tr. 1302–05, PAGEID #: 1360–63). She found that J.W. had marked limitations in 

attending and completing tasks and with his health and physical well-being. (Tr. 1303–04, 

PAGEID #: 1361–62). Dr. Peters further concluded that J.W. had moderate limitations in 

interacting and relating with others and caring for himself. (Id.). She deferred to J.W.’s school’s 

assessment of his ability to acquire and use information and to move about and manipulate objects. 

(Tr. 1302–03, PAGEID #: 1360–61). Dr. Peters opined that J.W. had “chronic, ongoing ADHD” 

and “tics” with “tics intermittently/episodically exacerbated in their natural course.” (Tr. 1304, 

PAGEID #: 1362).

At an appointment on March 8, 2016, Dr. Peters noted that J.W.’s teachers had observed 

more severe ADHD symptoms and increased tic-related movements. (Tr. 1599, PAGEID #: 1658). 

J.W.’s teachers specifically noted that he was having “difficulty focusing.” (Id.). Treatment notes 

from later in November 2016 indicate that Plaintiff was “thriving.” (Tr. 1616, PAGEID #: 1675). 

Dr. Peters reported that J.W.’s grades were “great” and that he had good relationships with his 

friends and teacher. (Id.). Nonetheless, J.W.’s teacher noted that he was still having attention 

problems and that he was lagging in written expression, following directions, and organizing. (Id.). 

At a January 24, 2017 appointment, Plaintiff reported that J.W.’s grades had “really 

improved” and that his behavioral problems had decreased. (Tr. 1652, PAGEID #: 1711). Dr. 

Peters expressed concern about J.W.’s lapse in counseling. (Id.). She observed that J.W. was 

pleasant and seemed much more aware of social cues than in the past. (Tr. 1654, 

PAGEID #: 1713). 
10

On February 14, 2017, Dr. Peters completed a new questionnaire on medical and functional 

equivalence. (Tr. 1677–80, PAGEID #: 1736–39). She opined that J.W. had marked limitations 

in acquiring and using information, attending and completing tasks, and interacting and relating 

with others. (Tr. 1677–78, PAGEID #: 1736–37). Dr. Peters concluded that J.W. had a moderate 

limitation in his health and well-being. (Tr. 1679, PAGEID #: 1738). She further found that there 

was no evidence of limitations in J.W.’s ability to move about and manipulate objects or to care 

for himself. (Tr. 1678–79, PAGEID #: 1737–38). She noted that J.W. continued to suffer from 

ADHD, anxiety, and tics that fluctuated over time. (Tr. 1679, PAGEID #: 1738). 

E. The ALJ’s Decision

The ALJ first found that J.W. was a school-age child when the application was filed and 

an adolescent as of the date of the decision. (Tr. 27, PAGEID #: 77). Next, he found that J.W.

had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since his alleged onset date. (Id.). At the next step 

of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ concluded that J.W. had severe impairments 

including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anxiety disorder, specific phobia, and 

post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). (Id.). He also found that J.W.’s impairments did not, at 

any time, meet or equal the requirements of any section of the Listing of Impairments, or 

functionally equal those requirements. (Tr. 28, PAGEID #: 78).

The ALJ then reviewed J.W.’s educational records, J.W.’s medical records, and the opinion 

evidence contained in the record. (Tr. 30–34, PAGEID #: 80–84). Relevant here, he reviewed the 

opinion evidence of three of J.W.’s elementary school teachers:

[J.K], the claimant’s third grade teacher, opined in November 2014 that the 

claimant’s classroom abilities were overall below average, other than in reading, 

where she found him average. [A.K.], the claimant’s fourth grade teacher, opined 

in April 2017 that the claimant’s classroom abilities were mostly below average, 

except that she found him: to be average in responding to changes in routine; to be 

average/high average in reading; to be average in keeping with peers in 
11

extracurriculars; and to have difficulty getting along with peers, but fine with 

teachers. She also stated the claimant had problems with hair-washing, 

uncleanliness, smelling of smoke, etc. She further opined that the claimant had 

weak motor skills which limited his ability to function at school. [A.R.], the 

claimant’s fifth grade teacher, stated in March 2017 that the claimant’s classroom 

abilities were mostly weak or very weak, except that she found him: merely “below 

average” in math and writing, as well as in getting along with peers; average in 

responding to changes in routine; and above average in reading. She also noted 

average hygiene and self-care. As teachers, these three are professionals in the area 

of child development, and have had extensive opportunity to observe the claimant 

and his functioning. Their opinions are largely consistent with the claimant’s 

educational records as described above—the observations detailed there, the 

claimant’s grades, etc. I give [J.K.’s] and [A.R.’s] opinions great weight. There is 

no real support in the record for such significant personal care difficulties as [A.K.]

indicates; I give her opinion partial weight.

(Tr. 32–33, PAGEID #: 82–83).

In reviewing the six domains of functioning that are pertinent to a child’s benefits 

application, the ALJ determined that J.W. had less than marked limitation in: acquiring and using 

information, attending and completing tasks, interacting and relating with others, and health and 

physical well-being. (Tr. 34–38, PAGEID #: 84–88; Tr. 40–41, PAGEID #: 90–91). Further, the 

ALJ found that J.W. had no limitations in moving about and manipulating objects and in caring 

for himself. (Tr. 38–40, PAGEID #: 88–90). Because a finding of one “extreme” limitation or 

two “marked” limitations is needed in order to support an award of benefits, the ALJ denied 

Plaintiff’s claim. (Tr. 41, PAGEID #: 91). 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Sixth Circuit has summarized the regulations concerning a child’s application for 

disability benefits, stating:

The legal framework for a childhood disability claim is a three-step inquiry 

prescribed in 20 C.F.R. § 416.924. The questions are (1) is the claimant 

working, (2) does the claimant have a severe, medically determinable 

impairment, and (3) does the impairment meet or equal the listings? * * * An 

impairment can equal the listings medically or functionally * * *. The criteria 
12

for functional equivalence to a listing are set out in § 416.926a. That regulation 

divides function up into 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 yourself; and

(6) Health and physical well-being.

§ 416.926a(b)(1). To establish a functional impairment equal to the listings, the 

claimant has to show an extreme limitation in one domain or a marked 

impairment in more than one. § 416.926a(d). Lengthy definitions for marked 

and extreme are set out in § 416.926a(e). Each includes instructions on how to 

use test results:

“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.

§ 416.926a (e)(2)(i).

“Extreme” limitation is the rating we give to the worst limitations. However, 

“extreme limitation” does not necessarily mean a total lack or loss of ability to 

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

standardized testing with scores that are at least three standard deviations below 

the mean.

§ 416. 926a (e)(3)(i).

Kelly v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 314 F. App’x 827, 832 (6th Cir. 2009).

In the context of that legal framework, this Court’s review “is limited to determining 

whether the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and was made pursuant 

to proper legal standards.” Winn v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 615 F. App’x 315, 320 (6th Cir. 2015); 

see 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). “[S]ubstantial evidence is defined as ‘more than a scintilla of evidence 

but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as 

adequate to support a conclusion.’” Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 

2007) (quoting Cutlip v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994)). The 
13

Commissioner’s findings of fact must also be based upon the record as a whole. Harris v. Heckler, 

756 F.2d 431, 435 (6th Cir. 1985). To this end, the Court must “take into account whatever in the 

record fairly detracts from [the] weight” of the Commissioner’s decision. Rhodes v. Comm’r of 

Soc. Sec., No. 2:13-cv-1147, 2015 WL 4881574, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 17, 2015).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff asserts two assignments of error: (1) the ALJ erred in evaluating the assessments 

provided by J.W.’s elementary school teachers (Doc. 19 at 12–16), and (2) the ALJ erred in his 

evaluation J.W.’s treating physician (Id. at 16–18). Because the first assignment of error has merit, 

the Court does not reach the second assignment of error.

Under the regulations, teachers are considered “other sources,” rather than acceptable 

medical sources. SSR 06–3p, 2006 WL 2329939, at *1–2.

1

 Although information from other 

sources cannot establish the existence of an impairment, it “may provide insight into the severity 

of the impairment,” and how it affects the individual’s ability to function. Id. at *2–3. In 

evaluating the opinions of “other sources,” an ALJ should consider a number of factors, including 

how long the source has known the claimant, how consistent the source’s opinion is with other 

evidence, and how well the source’s opinion is explained. Id. at *5–6. Further, an ALJ:

generally should explain the weight given to opinions from these “other sources,”

or otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or 

decision allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the [ALJ’s] reasoning, 

when such opinions may have an effect on the outcome of the case. 

Id. at *6.

 1 “SSR 06-3p has been rescinded in keeping with amendments to the regulations that apply to claims filed on or after 

March 27, 2017, and the rescission is effective for claims filed on or after that date.” Hoffman v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 

2019 WL 697788, at *7 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 20, 2019) (citing 82 FR 15263-01, 2017 WL 1105348 (March 27, 2017)). 

Because Plaintiff’s claim was filed before the effective date of the rescission, SSR 06-3p applies here.
14

The ALJ generally complied with these regulatory requirements. He reviewed the opinions 

of J.K., A.K., and A.R. and considered how long they had known the claimant, how consistent 

their opinions were with other evidence, and how well they explained their opinions. (See Tr. 32–

33, PAGEID #: 82–83). The ALJ correctly emphasized that, “[a]s teachers, these three are 

professionals in the area of child development, and have had extensive opportunity to observe the 

claimant and his functioning” and opined that “[t]heir opinions are largely consistent with the 

claimant’s educational records.” (Tr. 33, PAGEID #: 83). Therefore, he concluded, J.K.’s and 

A.R.’s opinions were entitled to great weight. (Id.). The ALJ further found that A.K.’s opinion 

was entitled to partial weight, apparently discounting only her opinion as to J.W.’s limitations with 

respect to personal care. (See id. (“There is no real support in the record for such significant 

personal care difficulties as [A.K.] indicates; I give her opinion partial weight.”)).

But the ALJ did not satisfy a more fundamental obligation: “As a rule, the ALJ must build 

an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and his conclusion.” Waye v. Comm’r of Soc. 

Sec., No. 1:18-CV-201, 2019 WL 364258, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 30, 2019) (citing Wilson v. Comm. 

of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544–546 (6th Cir. 2004); Fleischer v. Astrue, 774 F. Supp. 2d 875, 877 

(N.D. Ohio 2011)). Here, the ALJ failed to build a logical bridge between his finding that J.K.’s 

and A.R.’s opinions were entitled to great weight and his conclusion that J.W. did not have any 

marked or extreme limitation in any of the six functional equivalence domains. 

Both J.K.’s and A.R.’s opinions provide support for the conclusion the J.W. had marked 

or extreme limitations in some of the six functional equivalence domains. For example, one of the 

domains is attending and completing tasks. As the Social Security Administration has explained:

In the domain of “Attending and completing tasks,” we consider a child’s 

ability to focus and maintain attention, and to begin, carry through, and finish 

activities or tasks. We consider the child’s ability to initiate and maintain attention, 

including the child’s alertness and ability to focus on an activity or task despite 
15

distractions, and to perform tasks at an appropriate pace. We also consider the 

child’s ability to change focus after completing a task and to avoid impulsive 

thinking and acting. Finally, we evaluate a child’s ability to organize, plan ahead, 

prioritize competing tasks, and manage time.

The ability to attend and to complete tasks develops throughout childhood, 

evolving from an infant’s earliest response to stimuli, such as light, sound, and 

movement, to an adolescent’s completion of academic requirements. Over time, 

this evolution can be seen in the steady development of a child’s ability to attend 

and to complete increasingly complex tasks.

. . .

As in any domain, when we evaluate a child’s limitations in the domain of 

“Attending and completing tasks,” we consider how appropriately, effectively, and 

independently the child functions compared to children of the same age who do not 

have impairments. For example, a teacher may report that a child “pays attention 

well with frequent prompting.” The need for frequent prompting demonstrates that 

the child is not paying attention as appropriately, effectively, or independently as 

children of the same age who do not have impairments. Despite the fact that the 

child is paying attention with prompting, this child is not functioning well in this 

domain.

SSR 09-4P, 2009 WL 396033, at *2. As examples, the Social Security Administration cited 

children with ADHD:

• Children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (AD/HD) whose primary 

difficulty is inattention may be easily distracted or have difficulty focusing on 

what is important and staying on task. They may fail to pay close attention to 

details and make careless mistakes in schoolwork, avoid projects that require 

sustained attention, or lose things needed for school or other activities beyond 

what is expected of children their age who do not have impairments.

• Children with AD/HD whose primary difficulty is hyperactivity and 

impulsivity may fidget with objects instead of paying attention, talk instead of 

listening to instructions, or get up from their desks and wander around the 

classroom beyond what is expected of children their age who do not have 

impairments.

Id. at *3. Limitations in this area can also “result in limitations in the domain of ‘Acquiring and 

using information’; for example, by undermining academic performance.” Id. at *4.

Both J.K. and A.R. opined that J.W. had significant limitationsin his ability to pay attention 

and concentrate in class, follow instructions, work independently of teacher supervision, and 

understand and complete assignments on time. (See Tr. at 408, PAGEID #: 462; Tr. 1202, 
16

PAGEID #: 1259). In fact, A.R. emphasized that J.W. was “very weak” in his “ability to follow 

instructions,” “ability to work independently of teacher supervision,” and “ability to understand 

and complete assignments on time.” (Tr. 1202, PAGEID #: 1259). She explained that J.W. needed 

directions “provided 3 or more times before taking appropriate steps” to complete assignments. 

(Tr. 1203, PAGEID #: 1260). And while the ALJ discounted A.K.’s opinion regarding J.W.’s 

personal hygiene, her evaluation was consistent with the opinions expressed by J.K. and A.R. (Tr. 

1204–05, PAGEID #: 1261–62). Particularly relevant here, she opined that J.W. needed “an aide 

to sit next to him to complete anything and stay focused.” (Tr. 1204, PAGEID #: 1261). 

Significantly, J.K.’s, A.K.’s, and A.R.’s opinions were consistent with J.W.’s educational records. 

(See Tr. 262, PAGEID #: 316 (observing that J.W. was unable to complete schoolwork without

frequent prompting because he was easily distracted and that he required “15-17 reminders” to 

complete a 30-minute assignment); Tr. 318, PAGEID #: 372 (recognizing that J.W. qualified for 

special education services because of his ADHD and emphasizing J.W.’s “extreme difficulty” 

functioning in a regular classroom)).

These opinions provide support for the conclusion that J.W. had a marked or extreme 

limitation in attending and completing tasks. Cf. SSR 09-4P, 2009 WL 396033, at *2 

(summarizing factors to be considered in evaluating the domain of attending and completing 

tasks). So too with respect to the acquiring and using information domain. See id. at *4 (providing 

that limitations in the area of attending and completing tasks can also “result in limitations in the 

domain of ‘Acquiring and using information’; for example, by undermining academic 

performance.”). 

Despite assigning the opinions of J.K. and A.R. great weight, the ALJ concluded otherwise. 

(See Tr. 34–41, PAGEID #: 84–91 (finding no marked or extreme limitation in any of the six 
17

domains)). But having assigned great weight to the opinions of J.K. and A.R., the ALJ was 

required to “build an accurate and logical bridge between [that] evidence and his conclusion” that 

J.W. had no marked or extreme limitation in any of the six domains. Waye, 2019 WL 364258, at 

*5 (citations omitted). The ALJ’s limited analysis did not satisfy that standard. (See, e.g., Tr. 36–

37, PAGEID #: 86–87 (“The claimant has less than marked limitation in attending and completing 

tasks. The observations of teachers and other education professionals and of treatment providers 

do support some degree of limitation in this area. However, the academic records and 

psychometric testing discussed under the previous domain have force in this domain as well.”)). 

Remand is, therefore, appropriate here.

Having concluded that Plaintiff’s first assignment of error warrants reversal, the 

Undersigned declines to address the remaining assignment of error. The ALJ may wish to consider 

Plaintiff’s remaining assignment of error on remand if appropriate.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Commissioner’s non-disability finding is REVERSED, and 

this case is REMANDED to the Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge under Sentence 

Four of § 405(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: February 28, 2019 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson

KIMBERLY A. JOLSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE