You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Sherry Howard, on Behalf of Sarah Wolff v. Jo Anne Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security Administration

Citations: 341 F.3d 1006; 2003 Daily Journal DAR 9984; 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7931; 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 18026; 2003 WL 22025135Docket: 02-15587

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; August 29, 2003; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves an appeal by the legal guardian of a minor, challenging the district court's decision upholding the Social Security Commissioner's finding that the minor was no longer disabled under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, reverses the district court's summary judgment and remands the case for further proceedings. The primary legal issues concern whether the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) based their decision on substantial evidence and applied the correct legal standards, particularly regarding the evaluation of childhood disability under 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(I). The guardian argued that the ALJ selectively reviewed evidence and failed to conduct a comprehensive evaluation by a qualified specialist. The Court found that the ALJ did not sufficiently synthesize multiple specialist reports into a holistic assessment, as required by statute. Despite improvements in the minor's condition, the Court concluded that the ALJ's reliance on individual evaluations, without a collective assessment, failed to meet legal standards for determining disability. The district court's ruling is reversed, and the case is remanded for clarification and further development of the record concerning the minor's impairments and functional limitations.

Legal Issues Addressed

Evaluation of Childhood Disability under the Social Security Act

Application: The ALJ must determine if a claimant's impairments meet or equal listed impairments, considering functional equivalence in key developmental domains.

Reasoning: The ALJ must determine disability by assessing if a claimant's impairments meet or are equivalent to those listed in Appendix 1 of the CFR.

Legal Requirements for Determining Childhood Disability

Application: The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act revised standards, limiting eligibility to children with severe functional limitations lasting 12 months or more.

Reasoning: This law aims to limit SSI eligibility to needy children with severe disabilities.

Requirement of Comprehensive Evaluation by Qualified Specialists

Application: The ALJ is required to make reasonable efforts to obtain a qualified professional evaluation of the claimant's case as a whole.

Reasoning: The statute mandates that the ALJ must make reasonable efforts to obtain a qualified professional evaluation of the claimant's case as a whole.

Standard of Review for Social Security Appeals

Application: The Ninth Circuit reviews the district court's decision de novo, ensuring the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence and correct legal standards.

Reasoning: The review process for the denial of social security benefits is de novo, requiring the Commissioner’s decision to be supported by substantial evidence and adherence to correct legal standards.

Substantial Evidence in Disability Determinations

Application: The ALJ's decision must be based on more than a mere scintilla of evidence, adequate for a reasonable mind to accept it as supporting a conclusion.

Reasoning: Substantial evidence is defined as more than a mere scintilla and must be adequate for a reasonable mind to accept it as supporting a conclusion.