A COURT REVIEWS SOCIAL SECURITY FINDING IN DISABILITY CASE

Judicial review of disability benefit determinations is governed by 42 U.S.C. §§421(d) and 1383(c)(3), which expressly incorporates the standards established by 42 U.S.C. §405(g). In relevant part, §405(g) adopts the familiar administrative law review standard of “substantial evidence,” i.e., that “[t]he findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive.” Thus, if the Commissioner’s decision is supported by “substantial evidence” and there are no other legal or procedural deficiencies, his decision must be affirmed.

Barrere v. Comm'r of Social Security, NYLJ February 04, 2020, Date filed: 2020-01-28, Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, U.S. - EDN,  Judge: District Judge Brian Cogan, Case Number: 18-cv-5854

In this case, the claimant alleged that he became disabled after a car accident in 2011 left him with significant behavioral changes and a traumatic brain injury. However, the court also noted:

"On July 2014, plaintiff obtained a perfect score on a Mini-Mental State Examination, demonstrating normal cognition and average intellectual functioning, and his Full-Scale IQ score placed him in the “high average range” of intellectual functioning. Moreover, an MRI of his brain from July 2014 showed “no abnormal enhancement” that would suggest any aggressive process, and a CT span resulted in normal findings in February 2016. Based on plaintiff’s daily activities and accomplishments, the ALJ could also reasonably conclude that he maintained certain cognitive ability to perform work with certain non-exertional limitations. After his car accident, plaintiff obtained a black belt in martial arts in 2016 and was actively pursuing the discipline of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, even working as a karate instructor for several hours a week without any negative behavioral incidents. In addition, he demonstrated “above average” academic achievement after his accident: he obtained an 1180 on his college admissions exam (“the SATs”); completed an associate’s degree in Criminal Justice with a 3.5 grade point average; passed biology and anatomy college classes; and pursued a physician’s assistant program (although he failed due to focusing on collegiate wrestling — not due to any cognitive or behavioral impairments). This further demonstrates plaintiff did not have a disabling mental condition. In sum, the record reflects that plaintiff could function in a low stress environment, such as teaching karate since March 2015 or regularly attending college classes — without any negative behavior incidents. If plaintiff’s symptoms did not severely limit his ability to obtain a “perfect score” on a medical evaluation, pursue multiple belts in martial arts, or obtain an impressive 3.5 GPA (which all certainly require a level of discipline, memory, and perseverance), then the ALJ could reasonably find that plaintiff maintained the capability to perform work with certain non-exertional limitations."