Brown ex rel. L.B. v. Colvin
193 F. Supp. 3d 460
E.D. Pa.2016Background
- Child claimant L.B. sought childhood disability benefits based on asthma and ADHD.
- An ALJ denied benefits; Magistrate Judge's Report concurred and the case was appealed.
- Court remanded to the Commissioner to provide a more complete evaluation of the attending and completing tasks domain.
- ALJ’s other objections remained overruled but not reconsidered on remand.
- Remand instruction focused on whether L.B. has a showing of impairment in the attending and completing tasks domain sufficient for functional equivalence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attending and completing tasks domain evaluation | ALJ erred in finding less than marked limitation | Record supported less than marked limitation | Remand for complete assessment of this domain |
| Reliance on video-game focus as evidence | ALJ improperly relied on sparse/video-game references | Evidence permissible if properly supported | Remand to develop proper evidentiary basis |
| Use of GAF scores in disability analysis | GAF scores unreliable and not controlling | GAF may be considered as opinion evidence | Remand to evaluate GAF's role appropriately |
| Impact of therapeutic/school-based services on functioning | Improvements due to structured setting not underlying improvement | Improvements reflect actual functioning | Remand to assess impact of structured therapy on behavior |
| Role of school observations and TSS data | School observations show limitations in attention | Not adequately weighed in ALJ’s decision | Remand for complete consideration of school-related evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnett v. Commissioner, 220 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 2000) (standard of review and application of substantial evidence)
- Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358 (3d Cir. 1999) (correct legal standards and evidentiary review)
- Monsour Med. Ctr. v. Heckler, 806 F.2d 1185 (3d Cir. 1986) (limits on medical-evidence weight and deference to experts)
- Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422 (3d Cir. 1999) (scope of review and substantial evidence considerations)
- Consolo v. Fed. Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607 (1986) (judicial review standards for agency decisions)
- United v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980) (due process and evidentiary weight in determinations)