UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON

ESTELA ESCOBAR-GONZALES O/B/O

M.G.,

Plaintiff,

v. 

CAROLYN COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security

Administration,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-cv-00569-KI

OPINION AND ORDER

Merrill Schneider

Schneider, Kerr & Gibney Law Offices

P.O. Box 14490

Portland, Oregon 97293

Attorney for Plaintiff

Billy J. Williams

United States Attorney

District of Oregon

Janice E. Hebert

Assistant United States Attorney

1000 SW Third Ave., Ste. 600

Portland, OR 97204-2902

Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:15-cv-00569-KI Document 20 Filed 03/03/16 Page 1 of 5
Jordan D. Goddard

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Office of the General Counsel

Social Security Administration

701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 2900 M/S 221A

Seattle, WA 98104-7075

Attorneys for Defendant

KING, Judge:

Plaintiff Estela Escobar-Gonzales, on behalf of her minor child, M.G., brings this action

pursuant to section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to obtain

judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner denying M.G.’s application for

supplemental security income benefits (“SSI”). I affirm the decision of the Commissioner.

DISABILITY ANALYSIS

For claimants under the age of 18, the Social Security Administration has established a

three-step sequential evaluation process to determine whether the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R.

§ 416.924(a). At step one, the Commissioner determines if the claimant is engaging in

substantial gainful activity; if so the plaintiff is not disabled. At step two, the Commissioner

resolves whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that is “severe” or a

combination of impairments that are severe. Id. If the claimant does not have a medically

determinable severe impairment, the claimant is not disabled. 

If the evaluation proceeds to step three, the Commissioner must determine whether the

claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or functionally equals the

Listings. In determining whether an impairment or combination of impairments equals a Listing,

the Commissioner must assess the claimant’s functioning in terms of six criteria: (1) acquiring

Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:15-cv-00569-KI Document 20 Filed 03/03/16 Page 2 of 5
and using information; (2) attending and completing tasks; (3) interacting and relating with

others; (4) moving about and manipulating objects; (5) self care; and (6) health and physical

well-being. The Commissioner must compare how appropriately, effectively, and independently

the claimant performs activities compared to the performance of other children of the same age

who do not have impairments. To functionally equal the listings, the claimant’s impairment or

combination of impairments must result in marked limitations in two domains of functioning or

an extreme limitation in one domain. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(d). In assessing whether the

claimant has marked or extreme limitations, the Commissioner must consider the functional

limitations from all medically determinable impairments, including any impairments that are not

severe, as well as the interactive and cumulative effects of the claimant’s impairment(s) in any

affected domain. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(a).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The court must affirm a denial of benefits if the denial is supported by substantial

evidence and is based on correct legal standards. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th

 Cir.

2012). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as

adequate to support a conclusion” and is more than a “mere scintilla” of the evidence but less

than a preponderance. Id. (internal quotation omitted). The court must uphold the ALJ’s

findings if they “are supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the record[,]” even if the

evidence is susceptible to multiple rational interpretations. Id.

THE ALJ’S DECISION

 The ALJ identified a learning disorder as M.G.’s severe impairment, which he found did

not meet or medically equal the requirements of any of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404,

Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:15-cv-00569-KI Document 20 Filed 03/03/16 Page 3 of 5
Subpart P, Appendix 1. As a result, the ALJ concluded M.G. was not disabled within the

meaning of the Act.

FACTS

M.G. was born in 1997. She attended special education courses. Her sister described

M.G. as having problems learning and understanding reading, writing and math. Her sister

reported M.G. had trouble staying focused, could not summarize what had been read to her, and

would walk out of her classroom in frustration. 

DISCUSSION

The only issue M.G. takes with the ALJ’s opinion is how he treated the lay witness

statement of M.G.’s sister. The ALJ summarized both lay witness statements--one from M.G.’s

sister-in-law and one from M.G.’s sister. He rejected both reports as follows: “I do not give

great weight to the statements of the claimant’s family members[] because they are not consistent

with the school records and the results of cognitive testing that show greater functioning and

abilities than alleged.” Tr. 34.

Lay testimony about a claimant’s symptoms is competent evidence which the ALJ must

take into account unless he gives reasons for the rejection that are germane to each witness. 

Stout v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th

 Cir. 2006). 

M.G. argues the ALJ was not permitted to reject both of the lay witness statements in a

wholesale fashion. To the contrary, however, the law does not require the ALJ to separately

discuss each witness’ statement. Specifically, 

We have held that competent lay witness testimony cannot be disregarded without

comment, and that in order to discount competent lay witness testimony, the ALJ

must give reasons that are germane to each witness. We have not, however,

Page 4 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:15-cv-00569-KI Document 20 Filed 03/03/16 Page 4 of 5
required the ALJ to discuss every witness’s testimony on a[n] individualized,

witness-by-witness basis. Rather, if the ALJ gives germane reasons for rejecting

testimony by one witness, the ALJ need only point to those reasons when rejecting

similar testimony by a different witness.

Molina, 674 F.3d at 1114 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Here, the ALJ summarized the reports of both lay witnesses, which were similar in

substance. He then rejected both statements due to their inconsistency with school records and

cognitive testing. M.G. does not challenge the ALJ’s reasoning, just the way in which he

presents his reasoning, but there is no basis to find error on either score. The ALJ gave germane

reasons for giving little weight to M.G.’s sister’s statement, and his reasoning is supported by

substantial evidence in the record.

CONCLUSION

The findings of the Commissioner are based upon substantial evidence in the record and

the correct legal standards. For these reasons, the court affirms the decision of the

Commissioner.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 3rd day of March, 2016. 

 /s/ Garr M. King 

Garr M. King

United States District Judge

Page 5 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:15-cv-00569-KI Document 20 Filed 03/03/16 Page 5 of 5