United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
WILLIAM H. BAUGHMAN, JR., MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Introduction
Before
me[1]
is an action by Melissa English on behalf of minor A.E. under
42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of the final
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her
application for supplemental security income.[2] Because the
ALJ's no disability finding lacks the support of
substantial evidence, this matter is reversed and remanded
for further administrative proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
Issue
Presented
This
case presents the following issue for review:
. The ALJ gave great weight to the opinion
of Dr. Marcia Troese, a consulting examiner.[3] Dr. Troese's
opinion spoke in terms of areas of functioning, not the six
domains set forth in the regulations.[4] The ALJ made no effort to
analyze how Dr. Troese's observations, test findings, or
recommendations relate to degrees of limitation in the
relevant domains.[5] Does substantial evidence support the
ALJ's determination that A.E. has less than marked
limitations in the domains of acquiring and using information
and in attending and completing tasks?
Analysis
The
Sixth Circuit in Buxton v. Halter reemphasized the
standard of review applicable to decisions of the ALJs in
disability cases:
Congress has provided for federal court review of Social
Security administrative decisions. However, the scope of
review is limited under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g): “The
findings of the Secretary as to any fact, if supported by
substantial evidence, shall be conclusive. . . .” In
other words, on review of the Commissioner's decision
that claimant is not totally disabled within the meaning of
the Social Security Act, the only issue reviewable by this
court is whether the decision is supported by substantial
evidence. Substantial evidence is “‘more than a
mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.'”
The findings of the Commissioner are not subject to reversal
merely because there exists in the record substantial
evidence to support a different conclusion. This is so
because there is a “zone of choice” within which
the Commissioner can act, without the fear of court
interference.[6]
Viewed
in the context of a jury trial, all that is necessary to
affirm is that reasonable minds could reach different
conclusions on the evidence. If such is the case, the
Commissioner survives “a directed verdict” and
wins.[7] The court may not disturb the
Commissioner's findings, even if the preponderance of the
evidence favors the claimant.[8]
I will
review the findings of the ALJ at issue here consistent with
that deferential standard.
The
state agency reviewing sources opined on initial review that
A.E. had less than marked limitations in the first three
domains and no limitations in the last three
domains.[9]The ALJ gave these opinions partial weight,
as they were not based on a review of the entire medical
record, and they were issued by non-examining
sources.[10] On reconsideration, the state agency
sources found A.E. had less than marked limitations in all
but one domain.[11] The ALJ again assigned partial weight to
these opinions, as the state agency sources had not examined
A.E. and they did not have the benefit of the testimony
presented at the hearing.[12]
Dr.
Troese conducted a comprehensive evaluation of A.E. over the
course of three days, including testing, on a referral from
Ohio Guidestone.[13] Following that evaluation, Dr. Troese
issued a thorough and complex written opinion regarding
A.E.'s current levels of functioning and treatment
needs.[14] The report does not speak in terms of
the Social Security Administration's regulatory domains
for determining disability in children between six and 12
years of age.[15] Rather, Dr. Troese's report speaks
in areas of functioning: cognitive; adaptive; executive; and
...