Source: http://ar.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150312_0000237.WAR.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-04-22 12:37:55
Document Index: 510613585

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 416', '§ 416', '§ 416', '§ 416', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404']

JIMMY NELSON O/B/O T.N., Plaintiff,
Plaintiff, Jimmy Nelson, brings this action on behalf of his minor daughter, T.N., seeking judicial review, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), of a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner") denying T.N.'s application for child's supplemental security income ("SSI") benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act ("Act"). In this judicial review, the Court must determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the Commissioner's decision. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Plaintiff protectively filed an application for SSI on T.N.'s behalf on November 30, 2010, alleging that T.N. was disabled since February 1, 2007, due to diabetes, thyroid problems, and asthma. (Tr. 15, 132). An administrative hearing was held on June 7, 2012, at which Plaintiff testified and was represented by counsel. (Tr. 33-55). By a written decision dated August 10, 2010, the ALJ found T.N.'s insulin dependant diabetes mellitus and asthma were severe impairments. (Tr. 18). The ALJ, however, found that T.N. did not have an impairment or combination of impairments medically or functionally equal to a listed impairment, and that T.N. was not disabled. (Tr. 18-28).
Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, which denied the request on September 18, 2013. (Tr. 1-4). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action. (Doc. 1). This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties. (Doc. 7). Both parties have filed appeal briefs, and the case is ready for decision. (Doc. 12, Doc. 13).
Functional equivalence may be established by demonstrating marked limitations in two, or an extreme limitation in one of the following 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. See 20 C.F.R. § § 416.926(b)(1), 416.926a(d). SSR 09-1p explains that the Commissioner evaluates the "whole child" in making a functional equivalence finding. A marked limitation in a domain is an impairment that seriously interferes with a child's ability to independently initiate, sustain, or complete activities. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(e)(2). An extreme limitation very seriously interferes with the child's ability to independently initiate, sustain, or complete activities. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(e)(3). The ALJ should consider all relevant evidence to determine whether a child is disabled, and the evidence may come from acceptable medical sources and from a wide variety of other sources. SSR 09-2P. The Commissioner's regulations provide that parents and teachers, as well as medical providers, are important sources of information. 20 C.F.R. § 416.924.
Plaintiff argues on appeal the ALJ erred by (1) failing to find T.N.'s hypothyroidism, enuresis, and patent foramen ovale ("PFO") were severe impairments, and (2) failing to find T.N. met the severity of a listed impairment. (Doc. 12 at 13).
At Step Two of the sequential analysis, the ALJ is required to determine whether a claimant's impairments are severe. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). An impairment is severe within the meaning of the regulations if it significantly limits an individual's ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). An impairment or combination of impairments is not severe when medical and other evidence establish only a slight abnormality or a combination of slight abnormalities that would have no more than a minimal effect on an individual's ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § § 404.1521, 416.921. The Supreme Court has adopted a "de minimis standard" with regard to the severity standard. Hudson v. Bowen, 870 F.2d 1392, 1395 (8th Cir. 1989).
The ALJ addressed all of T.N.'s impairments in the written decision and evaluated her thyroid condition, enuresis, and PFO, but found these conditions were not severe impairments. (Tr. 18-21).
Plaintiff did not list enuresis or PFO as a basis for disability on the application. Plaintiff also did not discuss T.N.'s hypothyroidism, enuresis, and PFO at the hearing. The failure to list these conditions as a basis for disability or discuss the conditions at the hearing tends to indicate the conditions were not severe. See Dunahoo v. Apfel, 241 F.3d 1033, 1039 (8th Cir. 2001); see also Pena v. Chater, 76 F.3d 906, 909 (8th Cir. 1996)(stating an ALJ is under no obligation to investigate a claim neither presented at the time of the application for benefits nor offered at the hearing).
The record reflects T.N.'s hypothyroidism and enuresis were controlled by treatment. (Tr. 288-291, 320-321, 351). In February 2010, Dr. Deborah Hays, one of T.N.'s treating physicians, documented T.N.'s hypothyroidism was controlled and her urinary problems were not serious. (Tr. 263). Although T.N. had new urinary problems later in the year, they were resolved with pull-ups and medications, and the ...