Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Elisea v. Colvin

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division

January 4, 2017

LUDGEREEN RENEE ELISEA On behalf of L.G., A MINOR PLAINTIFF
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          HON. BARRY A. BRYANT U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Ludgereen Renee Elisea (“Plaintiff”) brings this action on behalf of L.G., a minor, pursuant to § 205(g) of Title II of the Social Security Act (“The Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2010), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denying L.G.'s application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Act. The Parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge to conduct any and all proceedings in this case, including conducting the trial, ordering the entry of a final judgment, and conducting all post-judgment proceedings. ECF No. 7.[1] Pursuant to this authority, the Court issues this memorandum opinion and orders the entry of a final judgment in this matter.

         1.Background:

         Plaintiff protectively filed a SSI application on behalf of L.G. on November 9, 2011. (Tr. 12, 114-117). With this application, Plaintiff alleges L.G. is disabled due to myasthenia gravis, behavioral problems, and speech problems. (Tr. 123). Plaintiff alleges L.G.'s onset date was April 1, 2010. (Tr. 12). This application was denied initially and again upon reconsideration. (Tr. 66-67).

         Thereafter, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on L.G.'s application, and this hearing request was granted. (Tr. 81-83, 33-65). An administrative hearing was held on May 7, 2013 in Hot Springs, Arkansas. (Tr. 33-65). Plaintiff was present and was represented by Shannon Muse Carroll at this hearing. Id. Plaintiff and L.G. testified at this hearing. Id.

         On March 7, 2014, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's application for SSI on behalf of L.G. (Tr. 9-28). In this decision, the ALJ found L.G. was a preschooler on the date the application was filed and was currently a school-age child. (Tr. 15, Finding 1). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”) since November 9, 2011, the application date. (Tr. 15, Finding 2). The ALJ determined L.G. had the following severe impairments: congenital myasthenia gravis; oppositional defiant disorder; and a history of speech issues. (Tr. 15, Finding 3). The ALJ also determined, however, that none of L.G.'s impairments met, medically equaled, or were functionally equivalent to the Listing of Impairments in Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4 (“Listings”). (Tr. 15, Finding 4).

         In assessing whether L.G.'s impairments were functionally equivalent to the Listings, the ALJ assessed six domains of functioning. (Tr. 15-28, Finding 5). Specifically, the ALJ determined L.G. had the following limitations in the six domains of functioning: (1) less than marked limitation in acquiring and using information; (2) no limitation in attending and completing tasks; (3) less than marked limitation in interacting and relating with others; (4) less than marked limitation in moving about and manipulating objects; (5) less than marked limitation in his ability to care for himself; and (6) a marked limitation in health and physical well-being. Id. Based upon these findings, the ALJ determined L.G. had not been under a disability, as defined by the Act, at any time from the date Plaintiff's application was filed through the date of the ALJ's decision or through March 7, 2014. (Tr. 28, Finding 6).

         Thereafter, on March 12, 2014, Plaintiff requested the Appeals Council's review of the ALJ's unfavorable decision. (Tr. 7). On October 7, 2015, the Appeals Council declined to review this unfavorable decision. (Tr. 1-3). On November 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed the present appeal. ECF No.

         1. The Parties consented to the jurisdiction of this Court on November 17, 2015. ECF No. 7. Both Parties have filed appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 13-14. This case is now ready for decision.

         2. Applicable Law:

         In reviewing this case, this Court is required to determine whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2006); Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576, 583 (8th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance of the evidence, but it is enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the Commissioner's decision. See Johnson v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1145, 1147 (8th Cir. 2001). As long as there is substantial evidence in the record that supports the Commissioner's decision, the Court may not reverse it simply because substantial evidence exists in the record that would have supported a contrary outcome or because the Court would have decided the case differently. See Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001). If, after reviewing the record, it is possible to draw two inconsistent positions from the evidence and one of those positions represents the findings of the ALJ, the decision of the ALJ must be affirmed. See Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065, 1068 (8th Cir. 2000).

         In this case, Plaintiff is seeking disability benefits on behalf of a minor child. On August 22, 1996, Congress enacted the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105 (1996) (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(C)), which provided a more stringent standard for determining eligibility for Title XVI childhood disability benefits than the old law and prior regulations required. See Rucker v. Apfel, 141 F.3d 1256, 1259 (8th Cir. 1998); 142 Cong. Rec. H8913; H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 725, 104th Cong. 2d Sess. 328 (1996), reprinted in 1996 U.S. Code, Cong. and Ad. News 2649, 2716; Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 28, p. 6409.

         Among other things, the new law amended Section 1614(a)(3) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3), and changed the statutory definition of disability for individuals under age eighteen (18) under the SSI program. Under the new standard, a child is entitled to disability benefits only if he or she has a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, which results in marked and severe functional limitations, and which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months. See Pub. L. No. 104-193 § 211(a)(4)(c); 20 C.F.R. § 416.906. The new standard applies to all applicants who filed claims on or after August 22, 1996, or whose claims had not been finally adjudicated by August 22, 1996. Since Plaintiff filed her application in 2011, the new law applies.

         Under the new law, the ALJ's disability determination is based upon a three-step analysis. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.924. First, the ALJ must determine whether the minor child has engaged in substantial gainful activity. If not, the ALJ will proceed to the second step where the ALJ must consider whether the child has a severe impairment. If a severe impairment is found, the ALJ will proceed to the third step. At this step, the ALJ, must consider whether the impairment meets, or is medically or functionally equivalent, to a disability listing in the Listing of Impairments (“Listings”), See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1. A minor child may be disabled if his or her impairment is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.