Van Ness v. Commissioner of Social Security
3:14-cv-02076
N.D. Ind.Mar 23, 2016Background
- C.V., born Sept. 7, 2002, applied for child SSI on April 10, 2012 alleging visual impairment (oculocutaneous albinism, nystagmus, poor vision), ADHD/ADD, learning and behavior problems.
- ALJ found at Step Two that C.V. had severe impairments: albinism, nystagmus, ADHD, and learning disorder; denied benefits at Step Three, finding no listing met or equaled and that functional equivalence was not shown.
- The ALJ assessed the six childhood domains and concluded only a "marked" limitation in health/physical well-being; he found "less than marked" limitation for moving about and manipulating objects.
- Mother (Van Ness) and C.V. testified; the record contains a Function Report (largely check-boxes), school/ADL reports describing frequent tripping, bumping into people, limitations with videogames (must sit very close), and inability to perform some exemplary motor activities.
- Van Ness appealed the denial to the Appeals Council (denied) and then to the district court, arguing the ALJ ignored or misweighed relevant evidence in the domain of moving about and manipulating objects, failed to consider cumulative effects across domains, and made an inadequate credibility finding.
- The magistrate judge granted remand, concluding the ALJ’s analyses (particularly for the moving-about domain and cross-domain cumulative effects) were unsupported by substantial evidence and lacked an adequate explanation; credibility should be reassessed on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ’s finding of "less than marked" limitation in the domain of moving about and manipulating objects is supported by substantial evidence | ALJ ignored evidence (trip/bump frequency, need to sit close to TV, injuries in PE, inability to do some exemplary activities); misinterpreted enjoyment of sports as functional ability | ALJ relied on claimant’s testimony about playing sports/videogames and mother’s Function Report showing basic motor skills | Remanded—ALJ failed to build a logical bridge, misapplied standards (enjoyment ≠ ability), and ignored contrary evidence |
| Whether ALJ considered interactive/cumulative effects of impairments across all six domains | ALJ did not adequately evaluate impairments in combination across domains; analysis alternated between isolated impairments and generalized statements | ALJ asserted he considered cumulative effects generally in the opinion | Remanded—ALJ did not clearly identify which impairments were considered or explain interactions, preventing meaningful review |
| Whether ALJ’s credibility assessment is adequate | Credibility finding is boilerplate and unsupported; inconsistencies cited by ALJ are not borne out in record | ALJ cited record inconsistencies and non-medical factors to justify credibility finding | Not overturned as patently wrong, but court encourages the ALJ to reexamine and better explain credibility on remand |
| Remedy (scope of relief) | Remand for further administrative proceedings to properly evaluate domains, cumulative effects, and credibility | Affirmation of ALJ decision | Remand ordered for further proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Scrogham v. Colvin, 765 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2014) (standard for reversal: ALJ’s factual findings upheld if supported by substantial evidence)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Murphy v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 630 (7th Cir. 2007) (ALJ must develop record and explain why school evidence was discounted; enjoyment of activities cannot trump inability to perform them)
- Scott v. Barnhart, 297 F.3d 589 (7th Cir. 2002) (ALJ must articulate analysis to allow court to trace reasoning)
- Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744 (7th Cir. 2010) (check-box forms with minimal explanation are weak evidence)
- Brindisi ex rel. Brindisi v. Barnhart, 315 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2003) (ALJ must identify impairments considered when assessing combined effects)