Filed: Oct. 28, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 15-1257 _ J.D., By his mother; FELISHA MARTINEZ v. COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY Felisha Martinez, on behalf of J.D., Appellant _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2-13-cv-01304) District Judge: Honorable Edmund V. Ludwig _ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) October 8, 2015 Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, AMBRO, and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges (Opi
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 15-1257 _ J.D., By his mother; FELISHA MARTINEZ v. COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY Felisha Martinez, on behalf of J.D., Appellant _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2-13-cv-01304) District Judge: Honorable Edmund V. Ludwig _ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) October 8, 2015 Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, AMBRO, and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges (Opin..
More
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 15-1257
_____________
J.D., By his mother; FELISHA MARTINEZ
v.
COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY
Felisha Martinez, on behalf of J.D.,
Appellant
________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 2-13-cv-01304)
District Judge: Honorable Edmund V. Ludwig
________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 8, 2015
Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, AMBRO, and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed October 28, 2015)
________________
OPINION*
________________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
AMBRO, Circuit Judge
Appellant J.D. appeals his denial of disability insurance benefits. We will affirm
the District Court’s order affirming the ruling of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”).
I. Background
On August 31, 2009, J.D.’s mother, Felisha Martinez, filed a claim on his behalf
requesting disability insurance benefits for the period of August 2009 through March
2013. J.D. suffers from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and oppositional defiant
disorder. His application was denied and J.D. requested a hearing before an ALJ. After a
hearing at which J.D. and his mother testified, the ALJ determined that J.D. did not suffer
from an impairment or disability that would warrant disability benefits. The Appeals
Council denied J.D.’s request for review.
J.D. appealed that decision to the District Court, and the appeal was referred to a
United States Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge recommended affirming the denial
of benefits. The District Court adopted the recommendation, and this timely appeal
follows.
II. Standard of Review
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “The role of this Court is
identical to that of the District Court, namely to determine whether there is substantial
evidence to support the Commissioner’s decision.” Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 427
(3d Cir. 1999). “Substantial evidence has been defined as ‘more than a mere scintilla. It
means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate.’”
Id.
(quoting Ventura v. Shalala,
55 F.3d 900, 901 (3d Cir. 1995)).
2
III. Discussion
First, J.D argues that the ALJ improperly discounted the opinion of J.D.’s
psychologist, Dr. Mitchell, who found that J.D. had marked or extreme limitations of
functioning in all domains except for health and physical well-being. The ALJ assigned
little weight to this opinion because, among other things, there was no evidence that Dr.
Mitchell treated or evaluated J.D. He argues that the ALJ overlooked evidence that Dr.
Mitchell was his treating psychologist since at least May 2011.
We agree that there was evidence in the record before the ALJ that Dr. Mitchell
was J.D.’s treating psychologist. But substantial evidence nonetheless supported the
ALJ’s decision to give Dr. Mitchell’s opinion little weight. As the ALJ noted, Dr.
Mitchell gave no narrative or explanation for his opinion, which was given in a checklist
form. See Plummer, 186 F.3d at 429 (noting that an ALJ “may afford a treating
physician’s opinion more or less weight depending upon the extent to which supporting
explanations are provided”); Mason v. Shalala,
994 F.2d 1058, 1065 (3d Cir. 1993)
(“Form reports in which a physician’s obligation is only to check a box or fill in a blank
are weak evidence at best.”). Moreover, the ALJ noted that Dr. Mitchell’s opinion was
inconsistent with treatment notes from his colleagues at Northwestern Human Services
who were also treating J.D.
Second, J.D. argues that the ALJ improperly discounted the opinion of Ms.
O’Rourke, J.D.’s second grade special education teacher. She indicated that J.D. was
performing at lower than a second grade level and had problems functioning within
various domains. The ALJ noted that Ms. O’Rourke’s statements were “provided from
3
the perspective of functioning in a regular classroom and [she] does not provide
information regarding how well or not well [J.D.] does in the special education
environment.” App. 48. J.D. argues that the ALJ discounted the opinion of Ms.
O’Rourke because she focused on the regular classroom environment even though the
ALJ must consider J.D.’s functioning as compared to children who do not have
impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.924a(a)(2)(iii).
The ALJ gave the opinion limited weight because Ms. O’Rourke, a special
education teacher, opined as to J.D.’s functioning outside of her special education
classroom. The ALJ also noted that her opinion was inconsistent with other school
records. For example, Ms. O’Rourke stated that J.D. had serious problems focusing and
completing assignments when other school records showed that J.D. was satisfactory in
using time wisely. Ms. O’Rourke’s lack of first-hand observations, and the apparent
conflict between her opinion and other evidence, were proper bases to accord her opinion
little weight. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.913(d)–(e), 416.924a(b)(7)(ii).
Third, J.D. argues that the ALJ failed to consider pertinent evidence when
assessing J.D.’s capabilities in the domain of “Interacting and Relating with Others.” See
Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 705 (3d Cir. 1981) (noting that ALJ must explain
rejection of probative evidence). J.D. asserts that the ALJ did not consider his
Individualized Educational Program (“IEP”) report. Although the ALJ did not discuss
the IEP when analyzing J.D.’s capabilities in the domain of “Interacting and Relating
with Others,” the ALJ did summarize and discuss the IEP earlier in her decision and that
consideration of the evidence was sufficient. J.D. also argues that the ALJ failed to
4
consider or mention his Oral and Written Language Scales (“OWLS”). The OWLS were
included in the IEP, however, and, as we have discussed, the ALJ adequately considered
the IEP evidence.
Fourth, J.D. argues that he functionally equals the childhood disability listings and
that we should direct the District Court to award benefits. We decline to do so in this
instance. Brownawell v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 554 F.3d 352, 357–58 (3d Cir. 2008)
(“The decision to direct the district court to award benefits should be made only when the
administrative record of the case has been fully developed and when substantial evidence
on the record as a whole indicates that the claimant is disabled and entitled to benefits.”
(quoting Podedworny v. Harris,
745 F.2d 210, 221–22 (3d Cir. 1984))). As we have
discussed, the ALJ’s decision to decline to award benefits was supported by substantial
evidence and J.D. has not identified any errors that might call for a re-do.
* * * * *
For the reasons set forth above, we will affirm the order of the District
Court.1
1
Appellant’s unopposed motions for leave to file volume II of the joint appendix under
seal and to file a supplemental appendix are granted.
5
