Little v. Astrue
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166331
| D.D.C. | 2013Background
- Donte Little, a sixteen-year-old with learning disability and ADHD, guardian Amy Jones filed for supplemental security income on Oct 31, 2008.
- SSA denied benefits initially and after reconsideration; Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing with counsel appointed.
- ALJ held a hearing on Aug 2, 2010 and issued December 3, 2010 decision finding Not Disabled; severe impairments were borderline intellectual functioning and anxiety disorder; domains largely less than marked.
- Appeals Council denied review on Nov 3, 2011, making the ALJ’s decision the final agency decision and prompting this federal action for review.
- Plaintiff challenged the ALJ’s weighing of opinion evidence, especially non-treating sources, and the court remanded for express findings on weight given to a state consultative examiner (Dr. Abudabbeh).
- Court concluded ALJ erred by not explaining weight given to Dr. Abudabbeh’s evaluation and remanded for further proceedings consistent with SSR considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did ALJ properly weigh Crawford’s opinion under SSR 06-03p? | Little argued Crawford’s findings deserve greater weight due to impairment in four domains. | ALJ explained weight and weighed against record; Crawford not primary source. | No reversible error; ALJ adequately weighed and explained |
| Was the special education teacher’s questionnaire properly weighed and consistent with the record? | Farley’s inputs were given great weight despite alleged inconsistency and lack of explanation. | Findings consistent with record and other evidence; weight adequately explained. | Yes; weight properly supported by substantial evidence |
| Did ALJ properly weigh Dr. Banik and address Dr. Abudabbeh’s conflicting evaluations? | ALJ relied on Banik while failing to address Abudabbeh; Banik’s limits questioned due to lack of records. | ALJ correctly weighed Banik’s report as consistent with the record; Abudabbeh not adequately addressed is a separate issue. | ALJ erred by not addressing Abudabbeh’s evaluation; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Broyles v. Astrue, 910 F. Supp. 2d 55 (D.D.C. 2012) (court may not reweigh evidence; must ensure explanation of weight given to probative items)
- Jeffries v. Astrue, 723 F. Supp. 2d 185 (D.D.C. 2010) (administrative findings must be explained; not to substitute court’s judgment)
- Guthrie v. Astrue, 604 F. Supp. 2d 104 (D.D.C. 2009) (ALJ’s legal determinations must not be tainted by error of law; must explain evidence weight)
- Grant v. Astrue, 857 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2012) (ALJ not required to enumerate every regulatory factor when weighing opinions)