MURGI v. ASTRUE, No. 3:2009cv00114 - Document 16 (W.D. Pa. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER denying 11 plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 13 defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. See Memorandum Judgment Order. Signed by Judge Gustave Diamond on 9/27/10. (kw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
MURGI v. ASTRUE Doc. 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ) ) ) ) LEONARD K. MURGI for NICKOLE M. MURGI, Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 09-114J v. ) ) ) ) ) ) MICHAEL J. ASTRUE , COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER AND of this NOW, September, 2010, upon due consideration of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to plaintiff's request for review of the decision of the Commissioner of application for Social Security child's ("Commissioner") supplemental security denying income her ("CSSI") under Title XVI of the Social Security Act ("Act"), IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (Document No. 13) be, and the same hereby is, granted and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Document No. 11) be, and the same hereby is, denied. As the factfinder, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") has an obligation to weigh all of the facts and evidence of record and may rej ect or discount reasons for doing so. Cir. 1999}. any evidence if the ALJ explains the Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 429 {3d. Where the ALJ's findings are supported by substantial (Rev. 8/82) evidence, a reviewing court is bound by those findings, even if it Dockets.Justia.com would have decided the factual inquiry differently. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 38 (3d Cir. 2001). Fargnoli v. These well-established principles preclude a reversal or remand of the ALJ's decision here because the record contains substantial evidence to support her findings and conclusions. On November 12, 2005, Leonard K. Murgi filed an application for CSSI on behalf of his minor daughter, alleging disability since December 2003. Nickole M. Murgi, Plaintiff's application At plaintiff's request an ALJ held a hearing on was denied. February 28, 2007, at which Nickole and her father appeared and testified. On March 14, 2007, the ALJ issued a decision finding that Nickole is not disabled. On February 27, 2009, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review, thereby making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. In reviewing testimony, this case, the as well as her father's medical and academic records. established attention Nickole deficit suffers from hyperactivity either alone considered testimony, Nickole's along with her The ALJ found that the evidence oppositional-defiant disorder. impairments, ALJ or the severe disorder impairments ("ADHD" ) of and The ALJ further found that those in combination, do not meet or medically equal the severity of any of the impairments listed in Appendix 1 of 20 C. F. R. §4 04, Subpart P ("Appendix 1"), nor do they result in limitations that functionally equal any listing. As a result, the ALJ found that Nickole is not disabled within the meaning of the Act. (Rev. 8/82) - 2 - For a disabled child under the age under determinable marked and the Act, physical severe he of or she or mental functional eighteen to be must have impairment, limitations, \\a which and considered medically results which can in 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." U.S.C. §1382c(a) (3) (C) (i) i 42 see also 20 C.F.R. §416.906. The Regulations outline a three-step sequential evaluation process to determine a child's eligibility for SSI. §416.924. See 20 C.F.R. Under this analysis, a child will be found disabled if: (1) she is not working or engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) she has a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments medically that equals, is severe; and or functionally impairment listed in Appendix 1. (3) the equals impairment the meets, severity of an 20 C.F.R. §416.924(b)-(d). Here, plaintiff challenges the ALJ's findings at steps 2 and 3 of the sequential evaluation process. Plaintiff first argues that the ALJ erred at step 2 in finding that Nickole's alleged learning disability is not a severe impairment. Next, plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred at step 3 by finding that Nickole's severe impairments of ADHD and oppositional-defiant disorder do not meet or medically equal any listing under §112.00 for mental disorders. Finally, plaintiff claims that the ALJ also erred at step 3 in finding that Nickole's impairments do not functionally equal any listing. For the reasons explained below, finds that each of these arguments lack merit. I\\bAon (Rev. 8/82) - 3 - the court Plaintiff first argues that the ALJ erred at step 2 of the sequential evaluation process by finding that Nickole's alleged learning disability is not a severe impairment. At step 2, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments that is severe. found that 20 C.F.R. Nickole has §416.924(c}. the severe Here, the ALJ properly impairments of ADHD and oppositional-defiant disorder because the evidence indicates that those impairments cause more than minimal functional limitations. Contrary to plaintiff's assertion, Nickole' s alleged learning disability is not a severe impairment. Dr. Charles Kennedy, who performed a psychological evaluation of Nickole, found that she functions within the average range of intelligence and does not have a learning disorder. (R. 145). In addition, an evaluation report from Nickole's school indicates that she was not diagnosed with any learning disability. (R. 210). Based on this evidence, the ALJ did not err in making the step 2 severity determination. Plaintiff next argues at step 3 that the ALJ erred by finding that Nickole' s severe impairments of ADHD and oppositional-defiant disorder do not meet or medically equal any listing under §112.00 for mental disorders. Plaintiff also claims that the ALJ erred at step 3 in finding that Nickole's impairments do not functionally equal any listing. At step 3 of the sequential evaluation process for children, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant's severe impairments meet, medically equal, or functionally equal a listed impairment. 'llt,AOn (Rev, 8/82) - 4 - 20 C.F.R. §416.924(d). The regulations set forth specific rules for evaluating whether the child claimant has an impairment that meets a listing (20 C.F.R. §416.925), medically equals a listing (20 C.F.R. §416.926) or functionally equals a listing (20 C.F.R. §416.926a) . The burden is on the ALJ to identify the relevant listed impairments claimant's Security, in the federal impairments. 220 F.3d 112, regulations Burnett 120 n.2 v. that compare with the Commissioner (3d Cir. 2000). of Social The ALJ must "fully develop the record and explain his findings at step 3, including an analysis of whether and why [the claimant IS] impairments ... are or are not equivalent in severity to one of the listed impairments." Id. at 120. However, the burden is on the claimant to present medical findings that show her impairment matches a listing or is equal in severity to a listed impairment. Williams v. Sullivan, 970 F.2d 1178, 1186 (3d Cir. 1992). In this case, the ALJ found at step 3 that Nickole suffers from the severe impairments of ADHD and oppositional-defiant disorder, but those impairments either alone or in combination do not meet or medically equal any in §112. 00 As required by Burnett, relating to mental disorders. of the listings the ALJ then explained her reasoning why Nickole's impairments do not meet or equal any of those listings. (R. 15). Although the ALJ satisfied her burden at step 3, plaintiff failed to do so in this case. In order for a claimant to show that her medical condition meets or equals the severity of a (Rev 8/82) - 5 - listed impairment that she meets impairment. other I she must present medical findings which show or equals all the criteria Sullivan v. zebleYI 493 U.S. 521 than broadly asserting listing under §112. 00 evidence of of record that Nickole plaintiff did not I to substantiate the 1 for a 531 (1990). meets or listed Here equals l a identify any medical claim that Nickole s l medical conditions satisfy the criteria of any particular listing. Accordingly I the court finds the ALJ/s step 3 determination that Nickole's impairments do not meet or medically equally any listed impairment is supported by substantial evidence. The court likewise concludes that the ALJ's step 3 finding that Nickole/s impairments do not functionally equal any listing is supported by substantial evidence. Under the regulations, an impairment functionally equals the listings if it results in "marked" limitations l in two domains of functioning or an "extreme" limitation2 in one domain. §416.926a(a). 20 C.F.R. The six domains of functioning to be considered in this evaluation are: (1) acquiring and using information; (2) lA "marked" limitation in a domain will be found "when your impairment (s) interferes seriously with your ability to independently initiate sustain or complete activi ties." 20 C.F.R. §416.926a(e) (2) (i). A "marked" limitation also means a limi tation that is "more than moderate" but "less than extreme. Id. I I II "An "extreme" limitation in a domain will be found "when your impairment (s) interferes very seriously with your ability to independently initiate sustain or complete activities." 20 C.F.R. §416.926a(e)(3}(i}. An "extreme" limitation is a limitation that is "more than marked" but does not necessarily mean a total lack or loss of ability to function. Id. l l (Rev 8182) - 6 - attending and completing tasks; (3) interacting and relating with others; (4) moving about and manipulating objects; (5) caring for yourself; and (6) 20 C.F.R. than marked health and physical well-being. §416. 926a (b) (1) (i) - (vi) . The ALJ determined that Nickole has less limitation of functioning in acquiring and using information, in attending and completing tasks, in interacting and relating with others, and in caring for herself. (R. 19-21, 23). In addition, the ALJ found that Nickole has no limitation of functioning in moving about and manipulating objects, and in health and physical (R. 22, 24). well-being. With the exception of the domain of moving about and manipulating objects, plaintiff asserts that the ALJ's findings with respect to the substantial evidence. other five domains are not supported by However, after reviewing the record, the court concludes that the ALJ thoroughly explained the reasons for her findings regarding each of the six domains, (R. 19-24) I and is satisfied that there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ's findings. First, with regard to acquiring and using information, Nickole's full scale IQ score was 92, which reflected an average range of intellectual functioning. (R. 136). In addition, after Nickole moved from her mother's house and began living with her father, her grades improved from D's and F's to A's and B's. 190) . Further, one of Nickole' s teachers reported that (R. she completes her class work and does well participating in class. (Rev. 8/82) - 7 - (R. 110). For these reasons, the ALJ properly found that Nickole has less than a marked limitation in the domain of acquiring and using information. The ALJ likewise correctly determined that Nickole has less than a marked limitation in the domain of attending and completing Nickole's tasks. teacher reported that she has problems carrying out multi-step instructions, only slight completing work accurately without careless mistakes and organizing her school materials. has no (R. 111). problems Nickole's teacher further reported that she paying attention sustaining attention during enough finish assigned to necessary, an waiting to take when sports activities, task, turns, spoken refocusing carrying to directly, focusing long to when out task single-step instructions, changing from one activity to another without being disruptive, completing homework assignments, working distracting others, and working at a reasonable pace. In addition, Nickole's father stated that she without (R. 111). demonstrated responsibility by raising and showing rabbits at a local fair. (R.191). Next, regarding the domain of interacting and relating with others, Dr. cooperative, Kennedy and noted Nickole's that Nickole was father stated that improved after she moved in with him. pleasant her (R. 191, 192). and behavior Nickole's teacher rated her as having no problem playing cooperatively with other children, seeking attention appropriately, expressing anger appropriately, asking permission appropriately, following rules, !Il!oA072 (Rev. 8/82) - 8 - respecting language adults, taking appropriate to turns the in a conversation situation at hand. and (R. using 112). Nickole's teacher indicated that she had only a slight problem making and keeping friends and in relating experiences and telling stories. (R. 112). Therefore, the ALJ's conclusion that Nickole has less than a marked limitation in interacting and relating with others is supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ also properly found that Nickole has less than a marked limitation in the domain of caring for herself. Nickole's teacher initially reported that Although she had an obvious problem identifying and appropriately asserting emotional needs, (R. 114), school records subsequently indicated that the emotional support component of her Individualized Education Program was discontinued because she met the goals that were set for her in that area. (R. 215, 223). Otherwise, Nickole's teacher indicated she did not have any problems in the area of caring for herself. (R. 114). Finally, the ALJ/s conclusion that Nickole has no limitation in the domain of health and physical well being is supported by substantial evidence. allergies l but there Nickole's physician diagnosed her with is no evidence to indicate adversely impacted her health in any significant way. 159) . In medication. addition, Nickole's ADHD was allergies (R. 148, well-controlled with (R. 115, 148 I 159). As the foregoing discussion of the evidence indicates, the ALJ correctly found that Nickole's (Rev. 8/82) - 9 - impairments did not functionally equally any listing because she did not have a marked limitation in two domains of functioning or an extreme limitation in one domain. Accordingly, the ALJ's step 3 finding is supported by substantial evidence. After carefully and methodically considering all evidence of record, the ALJ determined disabled within the meaning of the Act. that Nickole of the is not The ALJ's findings and conclusions are supported by substantial evidence and are not otherwise erroneous. Accordingly, the decision of commissioner must be affirmed. cc: United States District Judge J. Kirk Kling, Esq. 630 Pleasant Valley Boulevard Suite B Altoona, PA 16602 Stephanie L. Haines Assistant U.S. Attorney 319 Washington Street Room 224, Penn Traffic Building Johnstown, PA 15901 (Rev,8/82) - 10 - the
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
