From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Welch v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Feb 15, 2008
06 CV 5591 (RJD) (KAM) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2008)

Opinion

06 CV 5591 (RJD) (KAM).

February 15, 2008


ORDER


Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of her minor child, QW. Plaintiff seeks reversal pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner's finding that QW was not eligible for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act.

After conducting a hearing on the matter, reviewing the evidence before him, and following the sequential evaluation process set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 416.924, Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Ronald R. Bosch concluded that QW does not have an "extreme" limitation in any one, or a "marked" limitation in any two, of the functional domains set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 416.926(a) and therefore does not demonstrate a disability functionally equal to the criteria for severity set forth in the Listings of Impairment in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of 20 C.F.R. § 404. Tr. 22. The Court understands plaintiff's concern for the welfare of her daughter and notes the ALJ's observation that "the child's condition requires constant monitoring, and [that] the condition might worsen to the point of disability in the future." Tr. 21. However, because the record demonstrates that the ALJ's finding that "the child is not disabled at the present time," Tr. 21, is supported by substantial evidence, the Court grants the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Welch v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Feb 15, 2008
06 CV 5591 (RJD) (KAM) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2008)
Case details for

Welch v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:SHARESE WELCH o/b/o QW, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Acting…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. New York

Date published: Feb 15, 2008

Citations

06 CV 5591 (RJD) (KAM) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2008)