Memorandum Opinion and Order- Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

OLA COLE, on behalf of O. C. V., §

a minor child, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-0859-L

§

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, §

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL §

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, §

§

Defendant. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This is a social security case. Plaintiff Ola Cole (“Cole” or “Plaintiff” ), on behalf of her

child, O. C. V., seeks judicial review of a final decision of Defendant Jo Anne B. Barnhart,

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner” or “Defendant” ) denying

her application for child’s Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits for disability due to

attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the court

in implementation thereof, the case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Wm. F.

Sanderson, Jr. for review and submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for

disposition. On June 14, 2006, the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United

States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) were filed. Neither party filed objections to the Report. 

After an independent review of the pleadings, file, record, applicable law, and the magistrate

judge’s findings and conclusions, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the

magistrate judge are correct, and hereby accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00859-L Document 30 Filed 07/31/06 Page 1 of 4 PageID 109
Memorandum Opinion and Order- Page 2

vacates the decision of the Administrative Law Judge and that of the Commissioner, and remands

this action to the Commissioner for proceedings consistent with this order.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

On February 7, 2000, Cole filed an application for SSI benefits on behalf of her child, O. C.

V. The application was initially denied. Cole timely requested a hearing. Administrative Law

Judge (“ALJ”) Daniel Curran issued an unfavorable decision in the case on August 25, 2001. The

ALJ determined, among other things, that O. C. V. was not disabled because he did not have an

impairment or combination of impairments that met, medically equaled, or functionally equaled the

requirements of a listed impairment. The Appeals Council denied Cole’s request for review on

February 23, 2005, and the ALJ’s decision became the Commissioner’s final decision for purposes

of judicial review. Cole filed this action on April 29, 2005. 

II. Legal Standards

The court reviews the Commissioner’s denial of social security benefits to determine whether

the decision is supported by substantial evidence and whether the proper legal standards were used

in evaluating the evidence. See Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing Brown v.

Apfel, 192 F.3d 492, 496 (5th Cir. 1999)). Substantial evidence is defined as “‘such relevant

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion.’” Id. (quoting Ripley v. Chater,

67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir. 1995)). The substantial evidence standard is less than the well-known

preponderance of the evidence standard, but more than a mere scintilla of evidence. Id. That a

different conclusion might be drawn from the evidence does not necessarily preclude a

determination that the agency’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. Consolo v. Federal

Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966). In determining whether substantial evidence exists,

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00859-L Document 30 Filed 07/31/06 Page 2 of 4 PageID 110
Memorandum Opinion and Order- Page 3

the court reviews the entire record, but does not reweigh the evidence, or substitute its judgment for

the Commissioner’s. Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1022 (5th Cir. 1990). 

III. Analysis

 To prevail on her claim for child’s SSI benefits, Cole bears the burden of proving that O.

C. V. is disabled. An individual under the age of 18 is disabled “if that individual 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 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(C)(i). 

The magistrate judge determined that the ALJ erred by failing to explain his findings that

O. C. V.’s condition did not meet or medically equal a listed impairment under 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404,

Subpt. P, App. 1. As a result of the ALJ’s failure, the magistrate judge found that the court could

not conduct a meaningful review of his legal findings because it “is unable to ascertain either the

listing or the specific criteria the ALJ applied before determining that O. C. V.’s condition did not

meet a listed impairment.” Report at 15. The magistrate judge recommends that the court vacate

the Commissioner’s decision and remand this action for additional proceedings consistent with his

findings and conclusions. The court agrees.

With respect to Cole’s contention that the ALJ erred by improperly rejecting the opinion of

O. C. V.’s treating physician, the magistrate judge determined that the ALJ’s rejection of the opinion

was supported by substantial evidence. The magistrate judge found that the doctor’s conclusions

were contradicted by his own findings regarding O. C. V.’s mental status and ability to perform

activities of daily living, and therefore the ALJ properly rejected them. The court agrees with this

finding. 

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00859-L Document 30 Filed 07/31/06 Page 3 of 4 PageID 111
Memorandum Opinion and Order- Page 4

IV. Conclusion

The court has made an independent review of the pleadings, file and record in this case. The

court agrees with the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions, and accepts them as those of the

court. Accordingly, the court vacates the Commissioner’s decision and remands this action for

additional proceedings for the ALJ to evaluate the evidence and make specific findings of whether

O. C. V.’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment under 20 C. F. R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App.

1, including a discussion of the listings criteria that O. C. V. failed to satisfy.

It is so ordered this 31st day of July, 2006.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00859-L Document 30 Filed 07/31/06 Page 4 of 4 PageID 112