U.S. Court, Western District of N.Y. rules ADHD child did not meet

by admin / Tuesday, 11 February 2014 / Published in Latest News

U.S. Court, Western District of N.Y. rules ADHD child did not meet
Helen Nguyen

Despite a 10-year-old’s diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), the U.S. Court for the Western District of New York did not find the child to be disabled under the Social Security Act.

In affirming the Social Security Administration’s denial of disability benefits in K.B. c/o K.V., Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge David G. Larimer found there was substantial evidence that the child only had mild limitations in attending to, following, and understanding age-appropriate directions and completing tasks. As a result, the court found that the child’s impairments were not severe enough to meet the requirements under Listing 112.11 of the Social Security Act.

Child disability claim

The instant case involved an application for disability benefits for a child, named K.V., who was diagnosed with ADHD.

When K.V. was 10 years old, his mother applied for disability benefits on his behalf. She asserted that he suffered from a disability since Sept. 1, 1997.

In October 2004, the administrative law judge (ALJ) rejected K.V.’s application. The ALJ held that K.V. was not disabled and therefore he was not eligible for disability benefits.

While the ALJ noted K.V. suffered from a learning disorder that caused him to be impaired in some areas, the ALJ did not find that these impairments were severe enough to meet the requirements to be considered disabled under the Social Security Act.

Court’s discussion

Child disability standard, Listing 112.11

In order for a child under the age of 18 to qualify for disability benefits, the child must have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, which results in marked and severe functional limitations, and which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months, 42 USC Section 1382(a)(3)(C)(I) (emphasis added).

To meet the level of severity required under Listing 112.11 with regard to ADHD, there must be: (A) medically documented findings of marked inattention, marked impulsiveness, and marked hyperactivity; and (B) resulting in a marked impairment in at least two of the following: cognitive/communicative function, social functioning, personal functioning, or maintaining concentration, persistence and pace, see 20 CFR pt. 404, Subpt., App. 1, at Listing 112.11 (emphasis added).

The district court found that K.V.’s impairments did not meet these requirements under Listing 112.11.

In particular, an evaluation conducted by a psychologist in July 2004 revealed that K.V. had only mild limitations in attending to, following, and understanding age-appropriate directions and completing tasks. The evaluation also showed that he only had mild difficulty in development of verbal communication, which was in the borderline range.

K.V.’s pediatrician also conducted an evaluation and found that K.V. had symptoms of ADHD, but they did not meet or equal the requirements for ADHD found in Listing 112.11.

This evidence demonstrates that [K.V.’s] ADHD does not meet the requirements of Listing 112.11 because it does not cause ‘marked’ impairments in two of the subpart (B) categories found in the Listing, wrote Judge Larimer.

Functional domains

The district court also determined that K.V. did not meet the requirements of 20 CFR Section 416.926a, where a child is considered disabled if he or she has marked limitations in functioning in two of six domains or an extreme limitation in one of the domains.

The six domains are:

*(1) acquiring and using information;

* (2) attending and completing tasks;

* (3) interacting and relating with others;

* (4) moving about and manipulating objects;

* (5) caring for oneself; and

* (6) health and physical well-being.

Out of these six domains, the ALJ concluded that K.V. had less than marked limitations in three domains: acquiring and using information; attending and completing tasks; and interacting and relating to others. The ALJ further determined that K.V. had no limitations in moving about and manipulating objects, caring for oneself, or in his health and physical well-being.

The district court found the medical record supported the ALJ’s findings.

In particular, one of K.V.’s teachers noted that while he had some problems in acquiring and using information, attending and completing tasks and interacting and relating with others, the teacher found no marked impairments in two of the domains or that he was extremely limited in one of the domains.

A psychiatric evaluation in 2001 found that K.V. was not really a behavioral problem other than for the hyperactivity. K.V.’s primary doctor also noted that K.V. was doing well on medication.

Court’s Ruling

The district court found there was substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s determination that K.V. failed to meet the definition for a childhood disability under the Social Security Act, and was therefore not eligible for disability benefits.

Dr. Shahal Rozenblatt, Clinical Neuropsychologist, New York