Opinion ID: 725368
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Gait and station.

Text: 21 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App. 1. 22 The ALJ concluded that Tommy has mild cerebral palsy affecting the use of his non-dominant right upper extremity, but that he did not meet the criteria of Listing 111.06. We conclude that substantial evidence supports this conclusion. Other than Tommy's right arm, the only other extremity affected by his cerebral palsy is his right leg. His right leg is shorter than his left, he favors his right leg when running and he is unable to hop on that leg. However, according to Tommy, his mother, and Drs. Johnson and Thrower, he can run, bike, play sports, climb stairs, walk and stand without difficulty. According to Dr. Thrower his gait is unremarkable. 23 The only evidence that supports Tommy's claim that he meets the Listing 111.06 criteria is Dr. Baker's letter, which states that Tommy has persistent disorganization of his motor function for his age involving upper and lower extremities. The ALJ, however, permissibly rejected this opinion. 24 Where the opinion of the claimant's treating physician is contradicted, and the opinion of the non-treating source is based on independent clinical findings that differ from those of the treating physician, the opinion of the nontreating source may itself be substantial evidence; it is then solely the province of the ALJ to resolve the conflict. Magallanes, 881 F.2d at 751. Where, on the other hand, a nontreating source's opinion contradicts that of the treating physician but is not based on independent clinical findings, or rests on clinical finding also considered by the treating physician, the opinion of the treating physician may be rejected only if the ALJ gives specific, legitimate reasons for doing so that are based on substantial evidence in the record. 25 Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir.1995) (citing Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir.1989)). Here, the ALJ properly rejected Dr. Baker's conclusory statements because the record contained no evidence establishing that Dr. Baker objectively verified his conclusion and because Dr. Craig stated that the opinion was not in accord with the other treating physicians' examinations of Tommy. Thus, there is simply no evidence that Tommy's right leg was affected by his cerebral palsy so as to interfere with age appropriate major daily activities and to result in the disruption of fine and gross movements or gait and station. 26 Tommy also argues that he meets the criteria for Listing 111.07, which states: 111.07 Cerebral Palsy. With: 27 A. Motor dysfunction meeting the requirements of 111.06 or 101.03; or 28 B. Less severe motor dysfunction (but more than slight) and one of the following:
29 2. Seizure disorder, with at least one major motor seizure in the year prior to application; or 30 3. Significant interference with communication due to speech, hearing or visual defects; or 31 4. Significant emotional disorder. 32 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App. 1. Tommy claims that he has a less severe motor dysfunction and significant interference with communication due to speech, hearing or visual defects. There is no question that Tommy's difficulties with his right hand and arm are a less severe motor dysfunction; the ALJ, however, concluded that Tommy's speech impediment was mild, and not equal in severity to either listing. 33 Whether this finding is supported by substantial evidence is a close question. The ALJ noted that Tommy has a less than moderate limitation in the communicative functioning domain. He relies on evidence in the record that demonstrates that Tommy's voice is within normal limits; his fluency is within normal limits; and he has adequate structures for speech. In addition, Tommy was in the appropriate grade for his age, and was performing adequately. 34 On the other hand, uncontradicted evidence shows that Tommy has difficulty articulating s and z phonemes. Moreover, the Spokane School District examination, his teachers' comments and his mother's testimony all indicate that his teachers have difficulty understanding him in the class room setting. In addition, although he skipped a grade (which placed him in his age-appropriate grade because he had repeated a grade early on), it appears that his grades are below his aptitude due to some combination of his slower writing speed and his difficulties interacting in the classroom setting. Overall, however, we find that the ALJ's decision that Tommy's speech impediment did not cause significant interference with communication is supported by substantial evidence. 35 Lastly, Tommy argues that the ALJ erred in assessing the list criteria, and thus should not have made an individualized assessment to determine if Tommy's impairment was comparable to an impairment that would qualify an adult for benefits. Because substantial evidence supports the ALJ's findings regarding the list criteria, the ALJ was required to conduct an individualized assessment. Tommy raises no other challenge to the ALJ's individualized assessment.