United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
JESSE KRUMMEL, SR., o/b/o J.J.K. PLAINTIFF
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, DEFENDANT
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED
VOLPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
recommended disposition has been submitted to United States
District Judge Susan Webber Wright. The parties may file
specific objections to these findings and recommendations and
must provide the factual or legal basis for each objection.
The objections must be filed with the Clerk no later than
fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings and
recommendations. A copy must be served on the opposing party.
The District Judge, even in the absence of objections, may
reject these proposed findings and recommendations in whole
or in part.
Krummel, Sr. brought this action pro se pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 405(g), on behalf of his minor child,
J.J.K., for review of the final decision of the Social
Security Administration's denial of his claim for
supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social
Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3).
November 20, 2018, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
rendered a decision finding Plaintiff's son not disabled.
(Tr. 9-23.) The ALJ found J.J.K. was a school age child when
Plaintiff filed his application, and when the ALJ rendered
his decision. (Tr. 12.) See 20 C.F.R. §
416.926a(g)(2). The ALJ also found J.J.K. had never engaged
in substantial gainful activity. (Id.) The ALJ
determined Plaintiff's son had the following severe
impairments: post-traumatic stress disorder and
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. (Id.) The
ALJ then determined J.J.K.'s impairments or combination
of impairments did not meet or medically equal a listed
impairment. (Tr. 12-13.) Finally, the ALJ found J.J.K. did
not have an impairment or combination of impairments that
functionally equaled a listed impairment. (Tr. 13-22.) The
ALJ stated, “The claimant does not have an impairment
or combination of impairments that result in either
‘marked' limitations in two domains of functioning
or ‘extreme' limitation in one domain of
functioning.” (Tr. 22.) Thus, the ALJ found J.J.K. had
not been disabled since March 29, 2017, the date of
Plaintiff's application. (Id.) The Appeals
Council concluded there was no basis to change the ALJ's
decision; so, the ALJ's decision became the
Commissioner's final administrative decision subject to
judicial review. (Tr. 1-3); See 42 U.S.C. §
STANDARD OF REVIEW
role of courts under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is to determine
whether there is substantial evidence in the record to
support the decision of the Commissioner, and not to re-weigh
the evidence or try the issues de novo. See Prosch v.
Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1012 (8th Cir. 2000). If
substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's findings
and they are conclusive, a court should affirm them.
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390 (1971).
Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla but less than a
preponderance and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Id. at 401. A court may not reverse a prior
determination based only on a finding that substantial
evidence would support an opposite decision. See
Prosch, 201 F.3d at 1012; Johnson v. Chater, 87
F.3d 1015, 1017 (8th Cir. 1996). Consequently, a court's
review of this case is limited and deferential to the
Commissioner. See Ostronski v. Chater, 94 F.3d 413,
416 (8th Cir. 1996).
determining whether an impairment or combination of
impairments functionally equals a listing, the ALJ must have
assessed the claimant's functioning in terms of six
domains: (1) acquiring and using information; (2) attending
and completing tasks; (3) interacting and relating with
others; (4) moving about and manipulating items; (5) caring
for themselves; and (6) health and physical well-being. 20
C.F.R. § 416.926a(b)(1).
functionally equal a listed impairment, the plaintiff's
impairment or combination of impairments must result in
“marked” limitations in two domains of
functioning or an “extreme” limitation in one
domain. 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(d). Plaintiff has the burden
of proving his disability. See 42 U.S.C. §
1385c(a)(3)(A); Ingram v. Chater, 107 F.3d 598, 601
(8th Cir. 1997). A claimant must meet all of the specified
medical criteria of the particular listing. Sullivan v.
Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990). The standard for
medical equivalency is similarly demanding. In order to equal
a listing, plaintiff must present medical findings equal in
severity to all the criteria of the listed impairment.
Marciniak v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 1350, 1351 (8th Cir.
1995) (citing Sullivan, 493 U.S. at 530 (an
impairment does not meet or equal a listing if it has only
some of the medical criteria, no matter how severe)).
careful consideration of the record and pleadings in this
case, for the following reasons, I find the decision of the
Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence.
support of the Complaint, Plaintiff essentially contends that
the ALJ's decision is not supported by substantial
evidence. (Doc. 12 at 1.) Plaintiff attached
twenty-eight pages of records to his Complaint. Those
documents will not be considered and only those records that
are part of ...