Lisa Williams v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security

Citations: 179 F.3d 1066; 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 13252; 1999 WL 392161Docket: 98-2724

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; June 16, 1999; Federal Appellate Court

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Lisa Williams appealed the denial of her supplemental security income (SSI) benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security, Kenneth S. Apfel, following a ruling by Magistrate Judge Aaron E. Goodstein. Williams, whose mother applied for benefits on her behalf in 1991 due to disabilities, faced challenges related to her physical, mental, and emotional impairments. Despite a sympathetic case, the court affirmed the denial based on legal standards favoring the Commissioner.

The background revealed that Williams required extensive educational and behavioral support from a young age. She was diagnosed with low average intellectual functioning at three years old and exhibited significant academic struggles during her schooling, particularly by eighth grade, where her performance was equivalent to the fifth-grade level. Compounding her difficulties were issues at home, including abuse and her mother's substance abuse problems, along with a history of physical injuries.

An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reviewed her case in 1994, concluding that Williams was of average intelligence but lacked motivation, attributing her challenges to external factors rather than her impairments. The ALJ found moderate limitations in her cognitive functioning and social behavior but no significant motor development issues, leading to the denial of her benefits application. The Social Security Appeals Council upheld the ALJ's decision, prompting Williams to seek judicial review.

In analyzing the case, the magistrate judge upheld both the regulations governing the SSI program and the ALJ's decision. The appellate court reviewed the case de novo but noted it would affirm the ALJ's ruling if supported by substantial evidence, which it found to be the case.

In 1996, a child was classified as disabled and eligible for SSI benefits if they had a physical or mental impairment with severity comparable to that of an adult's disabling condition, as outlined in 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Commissioner applied a four-part test to assess disability, which included evaluating whether the child engaged in substantial gainful activity, determining the severity of impairments, comparing impairments to listed adult impairments, and conducting an individualized functional assessment (IFA) when necessary.

The plaintiff contended that the IFA used by the ALJ was invalid as it did not comply with statutory provisions because it failed to account for the vocational skills of children aged 12 to 16. During the administrative hearing, expert testimony indicated that the plaintiff had poor job prospects due to her limitations, yet the ALJ largely disregarded this testimony, citing that the regulations applicable only allowed for vocational analysis for adults and children aged 16 to 18.

The plaintiff argued that the lack of vocational analysis for children under 16 was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in Sullivan v. Zebley, which emphasized that children with impairments comparable to those that would disable adults should not be excluded from benefits. The Supreme Court had previously rejected the Secretary of Health and Human Services' reasoning that a 'listings-only' approach was valid due to children's lack of work history, asserting that it was incompatible with the statutory intent that children be treated similarly to adults concerning disability benefits.

A vocational analysis is deemed inapplicable to children; however, a functional analysis can effectively assess how an impairment affects a child's daily activities, similar to adult assessments regarding their work capabilities. The ruling in Zebley requires a deeper examination of children's disabilities but does not necessitate an identical vocational analysis to that of adults. Consequently, the plaintiff's argument for uniform treatment between children and adults is rejected, as supported by the case of Tyrrell v. Sullivan. 

In response to Zebley's mandate, the Social Security Administration updated its regulations for child disability assessments, implementing Individual Functional Assessments (IFAs) that, while comparable to adult evaluations, differ in their execution. For children aged 12 to 16, the regulations intentionally exclude work-related aptitude, aligning with the Supreme Court's view that vocational analyses are not suitable for younger children. This absence of such analysis is not seen as contrary to the statute, allowing the regulations to be upheld unless found arbitrary or capricious.

The IFA for children aged 12 to 16 assesses six domains: cognitive, communicative, motor, social, personal/behavioral, and concentration/persistence/pace. These assessments focus on the child's ability to engage in age-appropriate daily activities rather than vocational skills. Although the plaintiff, a 14-year-old at the time of the hearing, argues for a vocational analysis akin to those for older children, the regulations remain valid unless proven arbitrary or capricious—defined as reliance on unintended factors, failure to consider significant aspects, counterproductive decisions, or implausibility beyond agency expertise.

The Commissioner’s decision to differentiate between younger and older claimants is supported by various factors, including state employment laws that impose minimum ages for work, with restrictions easing as children reach 16 years old. This creates a greater likelihood of work histories for older children. The Commissioner recognized the necessity of evaluating children according to their developmental stages, acknowledging that assessments must align with their maturation processes. The regulations classify children's abilities to engage in social interactions and relationships differently across age groups, particularly focusing on the transitional phase of 16 to 18 years, where work-related capabilities become more relevant.

The childhood age categories are utilized as descriptive tools to facilitate age-appropriate evaluations of functioning and disability, maintaining consistent severity levels across categories without presenting advantages or disadvantages based on age assignment. The regulations were deemed reasonable, reflecting the need for age-specific assessments within the SSI program.

The plaintiff’s claim regarding the substantive impropriety of the ALJ’s decision, asserting she should have been awarded SSI benefits, faces challenges as ALJ findings are upheld if supported by substantial evidence, defined as adequate for a reasonable mind to accept. The review process does not involve substituting the Commissioner’s judgment or re-evaluating evidence.

The plaintiff highlighted diminished vocational prospects through witness testimonies from a psychologist and a vocational expert, asserting that consideration of this evidence would have led to a finding of disability. However, the ruling clarifies that the cited case law does not impose a requirement for the ALJ to account for such testimony in determining disability status.

The court in Reichenbach determined that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) incorrectly overlooked the cumulative impact of the claimant's impairments on work capability. However, this case is not applicable here because the Reichenbach claimant was 51 years old, and adult regulations were relevant to his vocational capacity. The focus in Reichenbach was on the severity of disabilities for vocational analysis, not on the evidence an ALJ must evaluate.

Accepting the testimony from Lisa's experts would necessitate disregarding the Commissioner's stance on predictive evidence. Lisa's experts argued that upon turning 18, Lisa would struggle to find employment due to her disabilities. The Commissioner emphasized that the assessment should not extend to future predictions of disability but rather focus on the child's impairments at the time of diagnosis relative to adult standards.

The plaintiff did not substantively challenge the evidence supporting the ALJ's conclusion that Lisa was not disabled, aside from the exclusion of vocational evidence. The ALJ reviewed comprehensive evidence, including testimonies from Lisa’s doctors and input from her teachers and family. While the doctors agreed on diagnostic findings, their conclusions varied. The ALJ found no significant impairments in Lisa's communicative or motor skills, and her cognitive function was borderline. Although she faced some difficulties in social and behavioral domains, these were attributed more to her home environment than to intrinsic dysfunctions.

The ALJ was not required to accept Dr. Nutall's conclusions as long as they were considered and reasonably rejected. The ALJ's conclusions were well-supported by other medical reports, teacher testimonies indicating Lisa's social capabilities, and her own behavior during the hearing. Evidence suggested that external factors, like frequent school changes and family issues, contributed to Lisa's difficulties. Dr. Nutall also acknowledged inconsistencies in her diagnostic results and conceded that motivational issues might have contributed to Lisa's academic challenges. Overall, the ALJ had sufficient grounds to deny the claim for disability benefits.

The magistrate judge's ruling affirming the Commissioner's regulations as non-arbitrary and the ALJ's discretion in denying the plaintiff SSI benefits is upheld. The court commends plaintiff's counsel, Ross R. Kinney, for his pro bono representation. The conclusion notes that during the case, Congress amended section 1382, altering the disability standard for children from a comparable severity standard to a more restrictive definition requiring a medically determinable impairment resulting in marked or severe functional limitations lasting at least 12 months. This change indicates that any claims denied under the previous standard would similarly be denied under the new standard. Thus, the determination that Lisa was correctly denied benefits under the old criteria is conclusive. The new regulations eliminate the need for individualized functional assessments for child claimants. It is also clarified that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, not the Commissioner, administered the SSI program at the time. A suggestion during the notice and comment period regarding the unfairness of a vocational standard for older children was rejected by the Commissioner. The plaintiff's reliance on Cockerham v. Sullivan is deemed unpersuasive, as that case involved an adult claimant and required vocational analysis due to age rather than severity of impairment. Here, the response to Lisa's severe disability finding necessitated an individualized functional assessment appropriate for a 14-year-old, which lacks a vocational component.