Source: http://ri.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180621_0000109.DRI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 20:14:42+00:00

Document:
This matter is before the Court for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) denying Social Security Insurance (“SSI”) under the Social Security Act (the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff filed her Complaint on behalf of her minor child on September 26, 2017 seeking to reverse the decision of the Commissioner. On March 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner. (Document No. 8). On May 14, 2018, the Commissioner filed a Motion for an Order Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner. (Document No. 11).
This matter has been referred to me for preliminary review, findings and recommended disposition. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); LR Cv 72. Based upon my review of the record, the parties' submissions and independent research, I find that there is substantial evidence in this record to support the Commissioner's decision and findings that Plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Act. Consequently, I recommend that Plaintiff's Motion (Document No. 8) be DENIED and that the Commissioner's Motion (Document No. 11) be GRANTED.
Plaintiff filed an application for SSI on behalf of her then eight year old daughter, A.S., on May 22, 2014 alleging disability since September 1, 2010. (Tr. 186-194). The application was denied initially on August 6, 2014 (Tr. 101-108) and on reconsideration on November 20, 2014. (Tr. 111-120, 130-136).
Plaintiff requested an Administrative Hearing. On June 16, 2016, a hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Jason Mastrangelo (the “ALJ”) at which time Ms. Stathakis and her daughter, represented by counsel, appeared and testified. (Tr. 50-100). The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision to Plaintiff on August 19, 2016. (Tr. 23-49). The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review on July 17, 2017. (Tr. 5-9, 11). Therefore the ALJ's decision became final. A timely appeal was then filed with this Court.
Plaintiff claims that the ALJ erred in finding that the child has less than marked limitations in the domains of acquiring and using information, interacting and relating with others, and caring for yourself.
The Commissioner disputes Plaintiff's claims and contends that the ALJ's finding of non-disability is supported by substantial evidence, and thus must be affirmed.
The court must reverse the ALJ's decision on plenary review, however, if the ALJ applies incorrect law, or if the ALJ fails to provide the court with sufficient reasoning to determine that he or she properly applied the law. Nguyen v. Chater, 172 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir. 1999) (per curiam); accord Cornelius v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1143, 1145 (11th Cir. 1991). Remand is unnecessary where all of the essential evidence was before the Appeals Council when it denied review, and the evidence establishes without any doubt that the claimant was disabled. Seavey v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2001) citing, Mowery v. Heckler, 771 F.2d 966, 973 (6th Cir. 1985).

References: § 405
 § 636
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.