Desiree Parker v. Nancy Berryhill

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted May 3, 2018* Decided May 3, 2018 Before JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge AMY C. BARRETT, Circuit Judge No. 17-2733 DESIREE PARKER, for D.R.S., a minor Appeal from the United States District Plaintiff-Appellant, Court for the Central District of Illinois. v. No. 16-2143 NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Harold A. Baker, Deputy Commissioner for Operations, Judge. Social Security Administration. Defendant-Appellee. ORDER Desiree Parker appeals the denial of supplemental security income to D.S., her minor son. Parker alleges that D.S. became disabled in 2011, when he was diagnosed with ADHD and asthma. His application was denied initially, on reconsideration, and after a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. Parker argues that the district court erred in upholding the denial of benefits because the ALJ’s decision was unsupported and based upon an incomplete record. She also objects to the ALJ’s reliance on the * We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). No. 17-2733 Page 2 testimony of a medical expert. But because the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, and Parker is mistaken about the record, we affirm the judgment. D.S. began having symptoms in 2010 when he was four years old. He chewed on his clothes, fought with his siblings, and behaved disruptively at home and at school. He was diagnosed with ADHD a year later and began taking Adderall. D.S. has taken Adderall in varying doses since then, though at times it is not administered consistently by his caregivers. Dr. Holly Maes, his pediatrician, has over time increased his dosage and added other drugs. Despite D.S.’s issues at home, his first-grade teacher’s reports were positive. She described D.S. as a “bright student who does not display behavior or academic difficulties” in the classroom. Even in the areas in which she observed his difficulties, such as completing tasks, she qualified that those problems arose only three times during the year. Dr. Maes referred Parker to a child psychiatrist for anger-management treatment because D.S. continued to be very disruptive at home. For example, Parker testified that D.S. fights violently with his brother (a recipient of disability benefits himself) and cannot tend to his personal hygiene. Two state-agency physicians reviewed D.S.’s file in 2012. Dr. Joseph Mehr, a psychologist, and Dr. Sandra Bilinsky, a pediatrician, both concluded that D.S. had the impairments of ADHD and asthma. They opined that his ADHD was not severe and his asthma was severe but well-controlled. (There is no evidence that D.S. ever sought medical attention for problems with his asthma.) They further found that D.S. did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or equaled a listing describing a presumptive disability, and that ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals