6:21-cv-01181
D. Kan.Sep 9, 2022Background
- Stephanie B. applied for SSI on behalf of her school‑aged son B.M.R.; SSA ALJ denied benefits and this appeal followed.
- ALJ found severe mental impairments (including borderline intellectual functioning, ADHD, intermittent explosive disorder, anxiety, impulse control disorder) but no listing met or equaled.
- In domain analysis the ALJ found: no limitation in two domains, less‑than‑marked limitation in acquiring and using information and in other domains, and a marked limitation in interacting and relating with others.
- Record evidence included school IEPs, Teacher Questionnaires (Ms. Thomas), WISC‑V and Aimsweb test scores showing below‑to‑well‑below average performance on some measures, and evidence of accommodations (inclusion support, extra time, resource room) and progress in classwork.
- Plaintiff argued the ALJ improperly downplayed the extent of accommodations and teacher reports and failed to resolve conflicts between the IEP/teacher opinions and state‑agency opinions, warranting a marked limitation finding.
- The district court affirmed: it held the ALJ’s explanation and citation of record evidence constituted substantial evidence and Plaintiff did not show the record compelled a contrary finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ erred in assessing the domain "acquiring and using information" | ALJ ignored or downplayed extensive accommodations, teacher ratings, and low test scores that together demonstrate a marked limitation | State‑agency opinions, IEP text, teacher reports and treatment notes support ALJ’s view that child functions in general classroom with accommodations and shows progress, especially on medication | Court: Affirmed. ALJ provided adequate rationale and substantial evidence supports less‑than‑marked finding; the evidence does not compel a marked‑limitation conclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048 (10th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for SSA decisions and substantial‑evidence framework)
- Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080 (10th Cir. 2007) (court must ensure ALJ applied correct legal standards)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (definition and meaning of substantial evidence)
- Briggs ex rel. Briggs v. Massanari, 248 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2001) (six‑domain framework for evaluating child functional equivalence)
- I.N.S. v. Elias‑Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1992) (agency findings are overturned only when contrary evidence compels a different conclusion)