Source: http://wa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180319_0000172.EWA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:27:21
Document Index: 80320914

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 402', '§ 404', '§ 423', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 1383', '§ 416']

SARAH LYNN HILL, Plaintiff,
ORDERDENYINGPLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ECF NOS. 17, 18
BEFORE THE COURT are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 17, 18. The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. ECF No. 7. The Court, having reviewed the administrative record and the parties' briefing, is fully informed. For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 17) and grants Defendant's Motion (ECF No. 18).
CHILDHOOD DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS
The Social Security Act provides disabled child's insurance benefits based on the earnings record of an insured person who is entitled to old-age or disability benefits or has died. 42 U.S.C. § 402(d); 20 C.F.R. § 404.350(a). The same definition of “disability” and five-step sequential evaluation outlined above governs eligibility for disabled child's insurance benefits. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(1)-(2). In addition, in order to qualify for disabled child's insurance benefits several criteria must be met. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.350(a)(1)-(5). As relevant here, if the claimant is over 18, the claimant must “have a disability that began before [she] became 22 years old.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.350(a)(5).
In July 2013, shortly after she turned age eighteen, Plaintiff applied for Title II child disability insurance benefits, otherwise known as disabled adult child benefits, as the survivor of her father, who died in March 2013. Tr. 212-15. In September 2013, Plaintiff also applied for Title XVI supplemental security income (SSI) benefits. Tr. 216-21. Plaintiff alleged a disability onset date of January 1, 2007 (eleven years old) in the SSI application, Tr.258, and June 9, 2013 in the insurance benefits application, Tr. 230. Plaintiffs applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration. Tr. 112-48. Plaintiff appeared for a consolidated hearing without representation before an administrative law judge (ALJ) on January 13, 2015. Tr. 45-70. Id. A supplemental hearing was held on June 23, 2015, where Plaintiff was represented by counsel. Tr. 71-111. On July 29, 2015, the ALJ denied Plaintiffs claims. Tr. 15-34.
The ALJ noted that Plaintiff was born on June 9, 1995 and had not attained the age of twenty-two as of January 1, 2007, the alleged onset date. Tr. 20. At step one, the ALJ found Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since June 8, 2013, “the date Plaintiff attained the age of eighteen, and the beginning of the relevant period.”[1] Tr. 20. At step two, the ALJ found Plaintiff has the following severe impairments: depression and anxiety. Tr. 21. At step three, the ALJ found that Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of a listed impairment. Tr. 21. The ALJ then concluded that Plaintiff has the RFC to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels, but with the following nonexertional limitations:
the claimant is able to perform simple, routine, repetitive tasks with no detailed work and only ordinary production requirements. The claimant can have brief, superficial contact with the general public and occasional, brief, non-collaborative contact with co-workers. The claimant would work better with things than with people.
Tr. 23. At step four, the ALJ found Plaintiff has no past relevant work. Tr. 27. At step five, the ALJ found that considering Plaintiff's age, education, work experience, and RFC, there are other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the Plaintiff can perform such as cleaner and kitchen helper. Tr. 28. The ALJ concluded Plaintiff has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, since June 8, 2013 through the date of the decision. Tr. 28.
On December 16, 2016, the Appeals Council denied review, Tr. 1-6, making the ALJ's decision the Commissioner's final decision for purposes of judicial review. See 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3); 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1481, 422.210.
Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision denying her child disability insurance benefits under Title II and supplemental security income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. ECF No. 17. ...