Mattox v. Berryhill, No. 7:2017cv00367 - Document 24 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 3/26/2019. (ck)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK'S OFFICE U,S.DtSX COURT AT ROAMOKE,VA FJLED MA2 2 s 2219 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTM CT COURT FORTHEWESTERN DISTRICTOFVIRGFNIA /: ULI A aC.DUDLEY LERK ROANOKE DIVISION K< Ee K LILLIE M ATTOX .0/8/0 X.T.,am inorchild, Plaintiff, CivilA ction N o.7:17CV 00367 M EM ORm N AN CY A .BEM Y H ILL,A cting CommissionerofSocialSecmity, UM OPINION By:Hon.Glen E.Com' ad SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge Defendant. LillieM attox,thegrandm otherand legalguardian ofX.T.,liledthisaction challengingthe snal decision of the Comm issioner of Social Security tenninating the payment of child's supplementalsecurity income (EçSSI'')benefksunderTitleXV1ofthe SoqialSecurity Act,42 U.S.C. jj 1381-1383(d).1 Jurisdiction of this court is established pursuant to 42 U.S.C. j 1383(c)(3),whichincorporates42U.S.C.j405(g). By order entered December 14,2017,the courtreferred this case to a United States MagistrateJudgepmsuantto 28U.S.C.j636(b)(1)(B). OnNovember20,2018,themagistrate judgesubmittedarepoi-tinwhichherecommendsthatthecourtaffirm theCommissioner'ssnal decision. Plaintiffhasfiled anobjectiontothemagistratejudge'sreport,andthematterisnow ripeforthecourt'sconsideration. Thiscourtischargedwithperforminga/..:novo review ofthemagistatejudge'sreport Mattox v. Berryhill Doc. 24 and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C.j 636(b)(1). In the instantcase,the court's review is lim ited to a determination as to whether there is substantial evidence to support the Comm issioner's conclusion that the plaintiff has not m etthe requirem ents for entitlem ent to benefits tmder the Act since December 3,2014. Ifsuch substantialevidence exists,the fm al 1Forpurposesofconsistencyandclarity,X.T.shallhereinaherberefeaedtoastheplaintiffinthiscase. Dockets.Justia.com decision ofthe Commissionermustbe affnned. Lawsv.Celebrezze,368 F.2d 640 (4th Cir. 1966). Stated briefly, substantial evidence has been defned as such relevant evidence, considedng the record as a whole,as mightbe found adequate to supporta conclusion by a reasonablemind. m chardsonv.Perales,4O2u.s.389,401(1971). The plaintiffwasbonzin Augustof2006 with a congenitalrightfootdeform ity,a right tibialdefciency,andanllnstablerightknee. (Tr.341,358). HelmderwentaSsrightthroughknee amputation''at Shriners HospitalforChildren in Greenville,South Carolina on July 12,2007. (Tr. 345). On Febnzary 5, 2008, the plaintiffs mother filed an application for child's supplemental security incom e benefits. On August 22,2008,the plaintiff was fotmd to be disabled as of February 5, 2008,based on the detennination that the plaintic s partial 1eg nmputation medically equaled Listing 101.05(B),since the plaintiffrequired assistance with walkingandwasunabletoperfonnage-appropriateactivities. (Tr.84-101,363). In 2014,the SocialSecurity Admirlistration perform ed a continuing disability review and determined thatthe plaintiff was no longer disabled,since he was ûlable to use his prosthesis withoutgreatdifficulty''andcoulddsparticipateinmostage-appropriateactivities.'' (Tr.80). On Decem ber3,2014,the SocialSecurity Adm inistration notifed the plaintiffthathis clzild's SSI benefitswouldendin Februaryof2015,basedon theagency'sdeterm ination thattheplaintiffwas nolongerdisabledasofDecember2014. (Tr.102-03). Theplaintiffsoughtreconsideration of the tennination decision..On Septem ber 8,2015,the agency notitied the plaintiffthat itwas adheringtoitsdeterminationthattheplaintiffwasnolongereligibleforchild'sSSIbenetks. (Tr. 143). The plaintiff then requested and received a 7.. : novo hearing and review before an Adm inistrativeLaw Judge. ln anopinion datedJune9,2016,theLaw Judgealsodeterminedthat 2 the plaintiff's disability ended as of December 3,2014,and thatthe plaintiffhas notbecom e disabledagàinsincethatdate. (Tr.43). TheLaw Judgefotmdthattheplaintiffhassuffered9om severalsevere impairments since December 3,2014,including dght1eg ,amputation,eczem a, allergicrhinitis,andattentiondefcithyperactivitydisorder(çW DHD''). However,theLaw Judge detèrm ined thattheplaintiT spreviously disablingimpairmenthasimproved,and thatnoneofthe plaintiffs conditions,either individually or in com bination,has metor m edically equaled the severity ofa listed impairmentsince December 3,2014. (Tr.19,26). The Law Judge also considered each of the six functional dom ains for the period since December 3,2014, and concludedthattheplaintiffhasexperiencedçElesstha11marked''limitationsineachdomain. (Tr. 38-42). Thus,theLaw Judge. fotmdthattheplaintiffhasnothad arlimpainnentorcombination 6fimpainnentsthatfunctionally equalsalisted impainnentsinceDecember3,2014. (Tr.27). ; Accordingly,the Law Judge concluded thatthe plaintiffwasno longerdisabled as ofthatdate. (Tr.43). TheLaw Judge'sopinionwasadoptedasthefinaldecisionoftheCommissionerbythe SocialSectlrityAdministration'sAppealsCotmcil. Havingexhausted a11availableadministrative rem edies,the. plaintiffhasnow appealed to tlliscoult A child isdisabled within them eaning ofthe SocialSecurity Actifhehasa tçphysicalor m entalimpairment,which resultsin m arked and severe functionallim itations,and ...which has lasted orcan beexpectedto lastforacontinuousperiod ofnotless12montlts.'' 42 U.S.C. j1382c(a)(3)(C)(i).,Undertheapplicableregulations,thedeterminationofwhetherachildmeets this definition is determined via a three-step inquiry. 20 C.F.R. j 416.924. The first detennination is whether the child is working and perlbrming substantialgainfulactivity. Id. j416.924(19. Ifthechildisnotworlcing,itmustthenbedecidedwhetherthechildsuffersfrom a severe impainnentorcombination ofimpairments. LI. L j416.924(c). Ifthechildsuffersfrom a 3 severeimpairmentorcom bination ofimpainnents,itm ustthen bedetermined whetherthechild's impairmentts)meet,medicallyequal,orftmctionallyequalanimpairmentlistedin20C.F.R.Part 404,SubpartP,Appendix 1. J.1L.j416.924(* . To determinewhetheran impairmentisfunctionally equivalentto alisted impairment,the Law Judgçevaluatesitssevedtyinsixdomains' .(1)acquiringandusinginformation;(2)attending andcompletingtasks;(3)interactingandrelatingwithothers;(4)movingaboutandmnnipulating objects;(5)caring for oneself;and (6)health and physicalwell-being. Id.j 416.926a(b)(1). Ftmctionalequivalence exists if the Law Judge finds a SGm arked''limitation in two areas of functioning or an Gtextreme''limitation in one area of functioning. ld.j 416.926a(d). A ççmarked''limitationisonethatSçinterferesseriouslywith (theclaimant'slabilitytoindependently initiate,sustain,orcomplete activities.'' 1d.j416.924a(e)(2)(i). A ttmarked''limitation Glalso m eansa lim itation thaiisçm orethan m oderate'butElessthan extreme.''' Id. Aspreviously noted,thecourtreferredthecaseto amagistratejudgeforareportsetting forth fndings of fact,conclusions of law,and a recomm ended disposition. J. n his report,the magistratejudge lzecommended thatthe courtaffirm the finaldecision of the Commissidner term inating thepaym entofchild'sSS1benefitsto theplaintiff. Succinctly stated,them agistrate judgedetermined thatsubstantialevidencesupportstheLaw Judge'sfnding thattheplaintiffs rightleg'nmputationhasnotmetormedicallyequaledListing 101.05(B)sinceDecember3,2014. The magistratejudgelikewise determined thatsubstantialevidence supportsthe Law Judge's sndingihattheplaintiffhashadççlessthan m arked''limitationsin al1six areasoffunctioningsince December 3' ,2014,and ' thus has not had an impainnent or com bination of impainnents that functlonallyequalsali7tedimpairmentsincethatdate. 4 In the objections to the reportand recommendation,plaintiff takes issue with the magistratejudge'ssndingsasto fouroftheissuesraised intheplaintiffs'motion forsllmmaz. y ' Judgment. The firstissueiswhetherthe Law Judge erred in snding thattheplaintiff'sright1eg impainnenthasnotmetormedically equaled Listing 101.05(b) since December 3,2014. A claimantmeetsormedically equalrthis Listing with the nmputation ofQçloqne orboth lower extremitiesatorabovethetarsalregion,with stump complicationsresultinginm edicalinabilityto . use aprostheticdeviceto ambulate effectively,...which havelasted orareexpectedto lastforat least12 months.'' 20 C.F.R.j 404,SubpartP,App'x 1,101.05. The inability to Stnmbulate esectively''isdefnedasE<al' lextremelimitation oftheabilitytowalk.'' Id.at101.001 )(2)08. ûiolderchildren,who would be expected to be ableto walk when compared to otherchildren the sameagewhodonothaveimpairments,mustbecapableofsustainingareasonablewalkinjpace overasufficientdistanceto beableto can'y outage-appropriate activities,''and they ççm usthave the ability totravelage-appropriately withoutextraordinary assistanceto and from school.'' Id. TheLaw JudgefoundthatsinceDecem ber3,2014,theplaintiffhasnotexperienced stump complicationsresulting in ::12 months(actualorexpected)ofinabilityto nmbulateeffectively.'' (Tr.20,26). ThecourtagreeswiththemagistratejudgethattheLaw Judge'sfmdingissupported by substantial evidence. In June of 2014,the plaintiffs second grade teacher noted thatthe plaintiffHmovesbetterthan mostoftheotherkids''andthatheGtrtmsandjllmps''with l'lotsof energy.'' (Tr.286). Theplaintiffsgrandmothersubsequentlyreportedthattheplaintiffenjoys, skateboarding and playing soccerand basketball. (Tr.655-56). On March 27,2015,a state agency physician found that çithere has been significant medicalim provem ent''and that the plaintiffsright1eg nmputation doesnotmeetormedically equalalistedimpairment. (Tr.411, 416). DtuingarlOctober12,2015exnmination atShrinersHospital,theplaintiffshowed Elgood 5 range ofm otion through the hip''and wasfound to be çidoing well''overall,even thoug,h he had beenwearinghisEtsmallérbrokenprosthesis.''z (Tr.536). Althoughtheplaintiffwasprescribed a wheeled walker approximately two m onths before the administrative headng due to a SEskin initation''(591),the Law Judge reasonably conçluded thatçithe record does notestablish an inabilitytoambulateeffectivelythathaslastedorisexpectedtolastforatleast12months.'' (Tr. 19). hathehas been treated foreczem a In arguing to the contrary,the plaintiffemphasizest , since2014,and thathis skin problemstherefore çtdid notsuddenly arise shortly before the ALJ hearing.'' P1.'sObjections2,Dkt.No.22. W hilethismaybetnle,therecordamplysupportsthe Law Judge'sdetermination thatthe plaintiffs complications from eczema did notprohibitllim f' rom ambulating effectively during mostoftherelevanttim epedod. lndeed,when theplaintiff firstpresented foran evàluationofhiseczemaon Septem ber10,2014,heexhibited çinonnalrange ofmotion''andpdmarilycomplainedofdry,itchyskinonhisdçarmsandneck.'' (Tr.423). Three m onthslater,theeczem awasfound to beçtwellcontrolled''and timuch im proved on llisskin care plan.'' (Tr.433,435). ThesamewastnleinMarchof2015,whentheplaintiY ssldnwasfotmd tobeGsnormal,''withtsnorashesorlesions.'' (Tr.453). Likewise,inAugustof2015,theallergist noted that the plaintiffs'Eûeczem a has been under good control''and that $% s skin is m uch im proved.'' (Tr.570-73). Althoughtheplaintiffcomplainedofincreaseditchingin December 1 . ; . of 20i5,less than three months before the adm inistrative headng,the plaizgiff nonetheless exhibited normalrange of m otion. (Tr.579-81). Because the itching primarily affected the plaintiffsability to lGsleep,''theallergistrecomm ended thattheplaintiffapply Vaseline galzze to hisstump S'atbedtime.'' (Tr.579,582). Insum,thecourtisconvincedthatsubstantialevidence 2Theexaminationnotesindicatethattheplaintiffwasdirected to Rgo toSprinkleProstheticstodayto make surethathisnew prosthesis,thatwasfabricated inM ay2015,istm ingappropriatelysohecantransitiontothisone.'' (Tr.536).' ' . jupports the Law Judge's conclusion thatthe record fails to establish an inability to nmbulate effectivelyforaperiodofatleast12months. Accordingly,theplaintiffsobjectionastotheright 1eg issueisovernlled. 111hissecond objection,theplaintiffarguesthatthemagistratejudgeerred in concluding thatsubstantialevidencesujportstheLaw Judge'sdeterminationthattheplaintiffhasexperienced a tçlessthan m arked''lim itation in the area qfattending and completing tasks since Decem ber3, 2014. In thisfunctionaldomain,the Law Judgeconsidershow wellthe claim antisablçto focus and m aintain his attention,and how wellhe begins,cnrriesthrough,and fzlishes M s activities, including thepace atwhich he perfonnshisactivitiesand the ease with which he changesthem . 20 C.F.R.j 416.926a(h). The regulationsprovide thatschool-age cllildren should be able to follow directions,remember. andorgnnizetheirschoolmaterials,andcompleteassignments. Id.j 416.926a(h)(2)(iv). They shouldalsobeableto concentrateondetails,stay ontask,and sustain theirattention wellenoughtoreadbythem selves,participatein group sports,andcompletechores. = Id ThecourtagreeswiththemagistratejudgethattheLaw Judge'sassessmentofthisareaof ftmctioi ng issupported by substantialevidence. In Jtme of2014,the plaintic s second grade teacherrated theplaintiffashaving eitherno problem soronly slightproblem sin thedom ain of attending and completing tasks,and Nnoted thatthe plaintiff Gttakes m edication thathelps him focus.'' (Tr.284). Dlzring asubsequentpsychologicalevaluation,theplaintiY sgrandmother reported that the plaintiffs prescription for Adderall proved t'very helpful in im proving his attention,decreasing hyperactivity and im pulsivity,''and that,when taking such medication,the plaintiffs ADHD symptoms were ttmild in the classroom.'' (Tr. 658). The plnintiff's grandmotheralso reported thattheplaintiffwasdoing wellin third grade,thathe wascapableof 7 independently perform ing chores,and thathecould sustain concentration long enough towatch a moyieandreadafive-minutebook. (Tr.657-58). Similarly,duringtheadministrativeheazing, theplaintifftestisedthathewasdoingwellinfourth grade,thathisfavoritesubjectwasreading, apd thathe did nothave any problemsreading his favodte book series. (Tr.55). The Law Judge'sassessmentoftheplaintiffsability to attend and completetasksisalso supported by the findingsofthestate agency consultants,both ofwhom opined in M arch of2015 thattheplaintiff hasaûllessthanmarked''limitationintllisareaoffllnctioning. (Tr.374,413). In thepending objection,theplaintiffarguesthattihehasexperienced signifkantissues with eczem aaffecting hisprosthesissince Septemberof2014,''and thatthe Law Judge Kdiplored evidencefrom plaintiffsfourth gradeteacher,M s.Hoyt,thatplaintiffsitchingand pain from his eciema and prosthesisgequently interfereswith hisability to attend and com plete tasks.'' Objection 3. Uponreview oftherecord,however,thecourtisconstrained to concludethatthis objection is whhoutmedt. As the Law Judge noted in ilis decision,SGthe treatmentilistory discussed above showsthatthese physicalsymptom sare intennittentand variable,''and thatthey generallyimprovedtmdertheslcincareplanprescribedbytheallergist. (Tr.39). AlthoughM s. Hoytreported thatthe plaintiff would Ssoften''ask to visitthe schoolnurse or the restroom to scratch hisleg (Tr.295),the Law Judge did notignorethe teacher'sletter. Instead,the Law Judgeysdecision confirm s-thathereviewe.d thecontentsoftheletterand determinedthatitwasnot entitled to considerable weight since it was tivague as to the frequency of the claim ant's prosthetic-relatedintem zptions.'' (Tr.28,35). TheLaw Judgealsoemphasizedthat1G(a)review ofthepoteskeptbytheschoolnursesuggeststhattheactualfrequency(ofnursevisitsjwasrather low.'' (Tr.35-36). Indeed,the notesreflectthatthe plaintiffyisited thentlrse approximately four tim es between January 2015 and February 2016 for complaints related to itching or his 8 prosthesis,and thatm ostofhisnursevisitswere forissuescompletelytmrelatedto eczem aorthe prostheticdevice.3 (Tr.588-589). Foral1ofthesereasons,thecolzrtisconvincedthattheLaw Judge's assessment of the plaintiY s ability to attend and com plete tasks is supported by substantialevidenceandthattheplaintiffsobjectionmustbeovenuled. Inltisthirdobjection,theplaintiffrguesthatthemagistratejudgeerredinconcludingthat substantialevidence supportsthe Law Judge'sdetermination thatthe plaintiffhasexperienced a Gûless than marked''limitation in the area of moving about and manipulating objects since December3,2014. Inthisdomain,theLaw Judgeconsidershow aclaim antm ovesltisbody from oneplaceto anotherandhow hemovesand manipulatesthings. 20 C.F.R.j416.926a(). The regulationsfurtherprovidethataschool-agechild'sdsdevelopinggrossmotorskillsshould1etEthe child)move rtan efficientpace atschool,athome,andthroughoutEhisqneighborhood. JIJ.Sj 416.926a(i)(2)(iv). A school-age child'stçincreasing strength and coordination should expand (the child's)ability to enjoy avariety ofphysicalactivities,such asnmning andjumping,and throwing,ckiclcing,catching and hitting ballsin informalplay ororganized sports.'' ld. ThecourtagreeswiththemagistratejudgethattheLaw Judge'sassessmentofthisareaof flmctioning issupported by substantialevidence. In Jtm eof2014,the plaintiffsteacherrated theplaintiffashaving eitherno problemsoronly slightproblem sin thedom ain ofm oving about J and.manipulatingobjects,andexpresslynoted thattheplaintiffcouldmovelGbetterthan mostof the 'other kids.'' (Ti.286). Dl zdng the subsequentpsychologicalevaluation,the plaintiffs grpmdmotherreported thatthe plaintiff enjoyed playing several sports,including soccerand basketball. (Tr.656). 'Atthe mostrecentvisitto SluinersHospital,the plaintiffexhibited Gigoo' d rangeofmotion tluough the hip''and wasfotmd tobetGdoing wetl''overall. (Tr.536). 3For instance,on severaloccasions,the plaintiff presented to the ntlrse with complaints related to his ort hodonticbraces. (Tr.599-601). 9 M oreover,dm ingtheadm iniskatikehearing,theplaintifftestifedthatherunsandplaysdodgeball duringgym class,andthattheonlyactivitythatheistmabletodoisljumpropew1111twofeetatthe ssme time.'' (Tr.59)..lnstead,the plaintiffjumpsrope with one foot. (Tr.59). The Law Judge's assessment of the plaintiffs ability to move about and mrmipulate objects is also supported by thefindingsofthestàte agency consultants,both ofwhom opined in M arch of2015 thattheplaintiffhasaçtlessthan mlked''limitationinthisareaoffunctioning. (Tr.375,414). In thependingobjection,theplaintiffsuggeststhattheLaw JudgeignoredaFebl'uary 11, 2016 letterfrom the plaintiffsphysicaleducation teacher,which indicatesthatthere have been 'tseveralinstances''when the plaintiffsprosthesishascaused him discomfortorprevented him f' rom participgting and thattheplaintiffsprosthesishasfallen offon Stm orethan oneoccasion in thelasttwoyers.'' (Tr.297). However,areview oftheLaw Judge'sdecisionconfirmsthatthe Law Judge considered theletterand fotmd thatitwasnotentitled to considerableweightsinceit wasçlveryvagueastothefrequencyoftheclaimant'sprosthetic-relatedintem zptions.'' (Tr.35). Based on the totality of the evidence, including the records f' rom Shriners Hospital and the plaintiffsowntestim ony,theLaw Judgefound thattheplaintiffççcan stilldo many activitiesboth inandoutofschool,despitesomeliinitationsfrom hisprosthesis.'' (Tr.36). Uponreview ofthe record,thecourtissatisfiedthatsubstantialevidencesupportstheLaw Judge'sconclusionthatthe plaintiff has experienced a ççless than marked'' lim itation in the area of m oving about and manipulatingobjects. Consequently,thecourtmustovenuletheplaintiff'sthirdobjection. Intheplaintiffsfourth and finalobjection,theplaintiffarguesthatthemagistratejudge Sterred in concluding substantialevidence exists to supportthe ALJ'S determination regarding plaintifpsallegations.'' P1.'sObjections6. Although theplaintiffsgrandmothertestified that theplaintiffçlcannotnm ...oreven walk''with theprosthesisand thathehasproblemsatschool 10 Glevel'y day''(Tr.68,71),the Law Judge fotmdthatsuch statementsregarding theintensity and limiting effectsoftheplaintiffssym ptom sw ereçtnotconsistentwith the evidencefortheperiod sinceDecember3,2014.1' (Tr.35). TheLaw Judgeemphasizedthatthenotesf' rom theschool . . ' ntlrse indicate that the prosthetic-related intenuptions have been far less frequent than the . plaintiff's grandmothersuggested. (Tr.35). The Law Judge also noted thatthe mostrecent exnmination notesf' rom ShrinersHospitalwere consistentwith theplaintiffsown testimony that hedidnbtbeginusingawheelchairuntilafew monthsbeforethehearingandwasdoing wellwith theprosthesisup tmtilthatpoint. (Tr.36). Additionally,theLaw Judge emphasized thatthe plaintifftestified thathecould perform mostofthe snm ephysicalactivitiesasllispeers,w111:the exceptionofjumpingropeusingbothfeet. (Tr.36). Theplaintiffstestimonyintllisregardwas consistentwiththeobservation byhissecondgradeteacherthattheplaintiffcouldnm,jump,and moveaswellasotherchildren. (Tr.286). Upon review of the record,the courtis unable to discern any error in the Law Judge's credibilityfindings. ThecourtagreeswiththemagistratejudgethattheLaw Judge'sassessment ofthe witnesses'testim ony is supported by substantialevidence. Accordingly,the courtm ust ovem lletheplaintiff'ssnalobjectioé. Insum,aftera#.tnovoreview oftherecordandforthereasonssetforthabove,thecourtis constrained to conclude thatthe snaldecision ofthe Comm issioneris supported by substmltial evidence. Accordingly, the plaintiffs objections to the magistrate judge's report are OVERRULED,themagistràtejudge'srecommendationwillbeADOPTED,andthefinaldecision of the Comm issioner will be AFFIRM ED. See Laws v.Celebrezze,supra. An appropriate judgmentandorderwillbeenteredthisday.4 The Clerk isdirected to send èertified copiesofthismemorandum opinion to theplaintiff and al1counselofrecord. DATED :Tllis % ô dayofM arch,2019. . SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge 4 The court notes that if any of the plaintiff's conditions have progressed or worsened since the Commissioner'sfinaldecision,theplaintiffmay reapply forchild'sSS1benefits.
]]>
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.
