Frye Ex Rel. A.O. v. Astrue, 485 F. App'x 484

Frye filed suit on behalf of her minor son A.O. challenging the SSA Commissioner’s denial of SSI benefits.
A.O. was born December 15, 2001 and has undergone early intervention services for speech, motor, attention, and behavior issues.
A.O.’s SSI application was filed January 8, 2007 and denied May 9, 2007.
An SSA ALJ held on September 2, 2009 that A.O. was not disabled and not functionally equal to a listed impairment.
The Appeals Council denied Frye’s request for review on December 22, 2009, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.
The District Court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Commissioner on March 31, 2011; Frye timely appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether A.O.’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment.	Frye contends A.O. met or medically equaled a listing.	Astrue argues features do not meet or equal a listing.	No, substantial evidence supports no listing.
Whether A.O.’s impairments functionally equal a listing via six domains.	Frye asserts functional limitations are marked/extreme.	ALJ properly found no two marked or one extreme domain.	No, substantial evidence supports no functional equivalence.
Whether the ALJ properly weighed the State agency opinion.	State agency report should be given weight against disability.	State agency opinion is expert testimony supported by record.	Yes, ALJ correctly relied on the State agency expert.

Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496 (2d Cir. 1998) (substantial evidence standard and review of disability determinations)
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (Supreme Court 1971) (definition of substantial evidence and appellate review)
Pratts v. Chater, 94 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 1996) (plena ry review of SSA disability determinations)