Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06279/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06279-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

BOBBYE. PLATT, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. No. 89-6279 

FI LED 

U!lit{'(f States Cpurr of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

APR .. 2 1990 

ROBERT L. 1-IOECKER 

Clerk 

LOUIS W. SULLIVAN, M.D., 

Secretary of Department 

of Health & Human Services, 

(D.C. No. CIV--88-701-A) 

( W. D. Ok la. ) 

Defendant-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, TACHA, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This is an appeal from an order of the district court 

affirming a decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

finding that appellant Platt is not disabled and denying Flatt's 

claim for Supplemental Security Income disability benefits and 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-6279 Document: 01019970747 Date Filed: 04/02/1990 Page: 1 
Social Security benefits as a disabled adult child of an insured 

worker. We have carefully reviewed the record, and we affirm. 

We must affirm the Secretary's determination if we find it is 

supported by ''substantial evidence" in the record. Campbell v. 

Bowen, 822 F.2d 1518, 1521 (10th Cir. 1987). Substantial evidence 

is defined as "more than a scintilla, but less than a 

preponderance; it is such evidence that a reasonable mind might 

accept to support a conclusion." Id. See Richardson v. Perales, 

402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). 

On appeal, Platt challenges the Secretary's determination 

that he did not meet the standards for mental retardation 

described in the listing of impairments of 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, 

Subpt. P, App. 1 § 12.05 (1989). If a claimant meets the criteria 

of one of the listed impairments, the claimant will be found 

disabled without consideration of other factors such as age, 

education, and work experience. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 (d). 

Here, the relevant listing is§ 12.05(D), which provides that a 

claimant is "mentally retarded'' if the following factors are 

present: 

A valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 60 to 

69 inclusive ... with two of the following: 

1. Marked restriction of activities of daily living; or 

2. Marked difficulties in maintaining social 

functioning; or 

3. Deficiencies of concentration, persistence or pace 

resulting in frequent failure to complete tasks in a 

timely manner (in work settings or elsewhere); or 

4. Repeated episodes of deterioration or decompensation 

in work or work-like settings which cause the individual 

to withdraw from that situation or to experience 

exacerbation of signs and symptoms (which may include 

deterioration of adaptive behaviors). 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-6279 Document: 01019970747 Date Filed: 04/02/1990 Page: 2 
The district court found that the Secretary's determination that 

Platt's impairment did not meet the requirements of the above 

listing was supported by substantial evidence. We agree. 

Kathy Bottroff, a Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor, stated 

that Platt's verbal IQ score is 71, his performance IQ is 79, and 

his full scale IQ is 72. R. II at 83; Id. at 138 (testimony of 

Sally Varghese, Psychiatrist). This score puts Platt beyond the 

criteria for a "listed impairment", which is an IQ of 69 or below. 

Psychiatric review technique forms were prepared during the 

course of the administrative proceedings pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 

§404.1520a and §416.920a. As the district court found, "[n]ot one 

of these forms supports a finding that the Plaintiff meets any of 

the four numbered functional restrictions, much less the required 

number of two." Distr. Ct. Op. at 11. See R. II at 115-16 (Dr. 

Binder's Mental Residual Functional Capacity Assessment of Platt 

indicates Platt is not "markedly limited" in any of the listed 

abilities); R. II at 143, 150 (Psychiatric Review Technique form 

filed by Dr. Sally Varghese indicates Platt "does not meet or 

equal a listed impairment."). 

There is some evidence in the record suggesting that Platt 

has difficulty performing the activities detailed in the first 

three categories (i.e., daily livingj social functioning, and 

concentration, persistence or pace). However, our function on 

appeal is not to weigh the evidence for a second time, but rather 

to determine whether the Secretary's determination is supported by 

substantial evidence. See Campbell, 822 F.2d at 1521. We 

conclude that the IQ scores and psychiatric report forms 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-6279 Document: 01019970747 Date Filed: 04/02/1990 Page: 3 
discussed above together constitute substantial evidence 

supporting the Secretary's determination that Platt did not 

satisfy the requirements for a listed impairment. Therefore, we 

must affirm that ruling. 

Platt's second argument on appeal is that the Secretary's 

determination that he "has the residual functional capacity to 

perform work-related functions except for work involving semiskilled or skilled work activities" is not supported by 

substantial evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 

416.920(f). Again, we disagree. 

Unskilled work consists of those jobs which can usually be 

learned in thirty days, and which require little specific 

vocational preparation or judgment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1568(a). 

Kathy Bottroff, a Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor, testified 

that there were several positions readily available in the local 

economy which Platt was qualified to perform: a garden and nursery 

worker, a child care attendant, a cafeteria line worker, a 

janitor, a kitchen helper or dishwasher and a laundry worker. See 

R. II at 86-87. 1 Dr. Binder's "Disability determination and 

transmittal" stated that Platt could "perform jobs such as poultry 

1 Although Ms. Bottroff testified that "my comments are going to 

have to be prefaced with the fact that while they are unskilled 

jobs, for someone like Bobby, they're going to require more than 

thirty days to learn, which is the criteria for unskilled work." 

R. II at 84. However, Ms. Bottroff went on to clarify prec1sely 

what it was that would have to be learned and said "[a]nd it isn't 

so much that the job task are [sic] what Bobby's going to be 

required to learn. It's going to be things like going to work 

daily, personal hygiene, work attitudes and things like that." 

Id. This testimony does not indicate that Platt lacks the ability 

to learn the actual unskilled job tasks within thirty days as 

required for a finding of disability under the regulations. 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-6279 Document: 01019970747 Date Filed: 04/02/1990 Page: 4 
hanger . produce weigher •.. and Sheller .since 

claimant can engage in work, disability cannot be established." 

R. II at 114. In his Functional Capacity Assessment, Dr. Binder 

wrote that Platt "can perform work where interpersonal contact is 

routine but superficial" and that Platt "[r]equires little 

supervision for routine tasks .. II R. II at 117. See R. II 

at 138 (Disability determination rationale) (same). John L. 

Boland, Ph.D, stated in his "Disability determination rationale" 

that "[w]e realize that your condition keeps you from doing some 

types of work, but it does not keep you from doing all work. 

Based on your age of 27, you can do some types of work which are 

less demanding." R. II at 131. He also stated in his 

Psychological Evaluation of Platt that "Bobby probably has the 

intelligence and academic skills necessary to successfully perform 

a number of menial jobs in this economy." R. II at 188. 2 

Finally, Platt himself testified that he had some work experience, 

albeit quite limited, mowing grass and placing wooden sticks in 

candied apples at a fair. R. II at 71-72. 

We believe the above testimony and evaluation forms together 

demonstrate that there is "substantial evidence" to support the 

2 Dr. Boland goes on to say that Platt "might be a good candidate 

for evaluation and training by the rehabilitation vocational 

division." Id. However, that qualification does not undermine 

his above conclusion that Platt has the present ability to perform 

the tasks necessary for certain unskilled jobs. 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-6279 Document: 01019970747 Date Filed: 04/02/1990 Page: 5 
Secretary's determination that Platt has the residual functional 

capacity to perform unskilled work in the local economy. 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court's judgment of June 14, 

1989. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

6 

Appellate Case: 89-6279 Document: 01019970747 Date Filed: 04/02/1990 Page: 6 
89-6279, United States v. Platt 

Seymour, J., concurring and dissenting 

While I concur in the majority's conclusion that Platt did 

not satisfy the requirements for a listed impairment, I 

respectfully must disagree with its analysis of Flatt's residual 

functional capacity. The majority's position on the 

substantiality of the evidence on this issue is premised on its 

view that cultural deprivation is an independent non-medical cause 

of Flatt's disability, see slip op. at 4 n.l, a view that I cannot 

accept for the following reasons. 

I do not agree that the effects of Flatt's mental retardation 

and his cultural deprivation can be assessed individually; they 

are inextricably intertwined. While it may be true that a person 

with Flatt's IQ who is not culturally deprived would not be 

disabled, it is Flatt's medical condition of retardation that 

makes him peculiarly susceptible to the effects of cultural 

deprivation and thus renders him disabled. Just as a person with 

asthma may be disabled by his increased susceptibility to the 

effects of non-medical environmental factors such as dust and 

fumes, so may a mentally retarded person be rendered disabled by 

the heightened impact of the non-medical environmental factor of 

cultural deprivation. Because the medical condition heightens the 

impact of the cultural deprivation beyond that felt by a "normal" 

person, the medical and non-medical factors simply cannot be 

Appellate Case: 89-6279 Document: 01019970747 Date Filed: 04/02/1990 Page: 7 
neatly evaluated separately. In other words, but for the medical 

impairment, the non-medical factors would not be disabling. 

The regulations governing the disability determination of a 

mentally retarded claimant clearly reflect the fact that the 

heightened impact of cultural deprivation on such a claimant is 

not to be disregarded. See 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 

§ 12.00 (1989). The regulations require that a fact finder look 

beyond the claimant's IQ, i.e., his capacity to know or apprehend, 

and assess work-related abilities the claimant retains despite his 

mental impairment. Such an assessment would be unnecessary if, as 

the majority believes, disability were to be based solely on what 

a person with a particular IQ ought to be able to do. Instead, 

disability is to be determined by evaluating many factors which 

can only be indications of the impact that cultural deprivation 

has on a person with an impaired capacity to know or apprehend. 

For example, the regulations require consideration of such 

abilities as "cleaning, shopping, cooking, taking public 

transportation, paying bills, maintaining a residence, caring 

appropriately for one's grooming and hygiene, using telephones and 

directions, using a post office, etc.," id. at§ 12.00C.l, the 

"ability to maintain social contacts with others, communicate 

clearly with others, interact and actively participate in group 

activities, etc., id. at§ 12.00C.2, and the "ability to complete 

tasks in everyday household routines," id. at§ 12.00C.3. By 

recognizing that a mentally retarded person may or may not have 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6279 Document: 01019970747 Date Filed: 04/02/1990 Page: 8 
the RFC to engage in substantial gainful employment, id. at 

§ 12.00A, the regulations make clear that a fact finder must look 

not only at IQ in the abstract, but at the effect that a low IQ 

has on a claimant's ability to overcome non-medical factors which 

would not disable a mentally normal person. Such an analysis is 

not contrary to the Act's requirement that a claimant be disabled 

by a medical impairment because it assesses the effect the medical 

impairment has on a claimant's ability to overcome otherwise 

non-disabling non-medical factors. Lay testimony is particularly 

important in the assessment of a mentally retarded person's 

ability to function on a daily basis. See Smith v. Heckler, 735 

F.2d 312, 316 (8th Cir. 1984). 

At the administrative hearing, the ALJ heard testimony from 

Platt, his sister, and a vocational expert. The ALJ also 

considered reports from two psychiatrists, Harold J. Binder, M.D., 

and Marcus S. Barker, M.D., and a psychologist, John L. Boland, 

Ph.D., all of whom evaluated Platt at the request of the agency. 

Platt's sister testified that he cannot follow instructions, that 

when Platt is told to mow a strip of lawn he zig zags, going wild 

and running over flower beds, that he cannot remember on Tuesday 

the instructions he was given on Monday, that he can pick up trash 

only if someone keeps checking on him, that he only can remember 

to get one or two items when sent to the store, and that he washes 

dishes very slowly and is always breaking something. She stated 

that she has to "stay on him" to get him to take a bath and change 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-6279 Document: 01019970747 Date Filed: 04/02/1990 Page: 9 
his clothes, that he doesn't wash his clothes _and would probably 

not take a bath if not told to do so. She described him as living 

in a kind of shell and stated that he never goes to see friends 

and they never come to visit. Platt testified that he spends his 

days watching television and caring for his pet chickens. He does 

some cooking and sweeping around the house. 

Dr. Binder's report consists only of the conclusory statement 

that Platt "can perform work where interpersonal contact is 

routine but superficial [, that Platt] requires little supervision 

for routine tasks, detailed [supervision] for nonroutine [tasks]." 

Id. at 117. Dr. Barker reported on Platt's mental status as 

follows: 

"The man is oriented for time, place, and person, but 

the overall fund of information is very limited and is 

not at clear [sic] how much of the information given is 

accurate. He was able to name three presidents. He was 

unable to do any serial 7's at all. He added 8 plus 5 

and got 11. He multiplied 4 times 9 and got 13. He was 

able to name 5 cities. When I asked how much change he 

would get from $1.00 if something cost 63¢ his answer 

was 32¢. When asked what does 'the grass is greener on 

the other side of the fence mean', he said, 'I can't 

think.' When asked how an apple and a pear are alike 

his first answer was that the apple is round and red and 

the pear is green. I said, 'that is how they differ, 

how are they alike?' He said they are both fruit. When 

asked what he would do if he found a stamped addressed 

sealed envelope, he said, 'I don't know.' When given 3 

items to remember, he was totally unable to recall any 

of them." 

Id., tab 198, at 198-99. Dr. Barker further stated: 

"The impression I have is of a mentally retarded 

individual who actually performs even below what 

stated IQs show. He is handicapped in addition, 

think, because of total environmental emptiness. 

-4-

the 

I 

The 

Appellate Case: 89-6279 Document: 01019970747 Date Filed: 04/02/1990 Page: 10 
man possibly could learn something in Vocational 

Rehabilitation, but it would again end up rather being 

menial in what he is able to perform at best." 

Id. at 199. It was Dr. Barker's opinion that Platt would be 

unable to manage his own benefits payments. Dr. Boland likewise 

stated his belief that Platt could not manage his own benefits 

payments, and gave his opinion that Platt "probably has the 

intelligence and academic skills necessary to successfully perform 

a number of menial jobs in this economy. He might be a good 

candidate for evaluation and training by the rehabilitation 

vocation division." Id. tab 188, at 188. 1 

The vocational expert prefaced her answer to the ALJ's 

question concerning the availability of jobs for someone like 

Platt by stating: 

1 Platt's sister's uncontroverted testimony as set forth above 

indicates that Platt is markedly deficient in the activities of 

daily living and in his daily concentration, persistence and pace. 

At the hearing, the ALJ and the vocational expert expressed 

concern over the fact that Platt's RFC as described appeared more 

limited than ordinarily seen in someone with his intelligence 

quotient. They speculated that it might be the result of a 

culturally deprived environment because he had not received very 

much stimulation from his family. See rec., vol. II, tab 61, at 

93-94. To address the perceived discrepancy between Platt's IQ 

scores and his level of functioning, the ALJ had Platt evaluated 

by Dr. Barker, whose report is set out above, and who essentially 

agreed with Platt's sister's description of his limitations and 

attributed them to "total environmental emptiness." Id. tab 198, 

at 199. Dr. Barker assessed Platt's ability to perform fifteen 

job-related functions and rated that ability as poor-to-none in 

thirteen categories and fair in two. Id. at 201-02. Dr. Boland's 

report, on the other hand, addressed only Platt's intelligence and 

academic skills, and simply did not discuss the criteria used to 

assess the RFC of a claimant with a mental disorder. The only 

contrary evidence is the conclusory statement in Dr . Binder ' s 

report that Platt requires little supervision in routine tasks. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-6279 Document: 01019970747 Date Filed: 04/02/1990 Page: 11 
"[M]y comments are going .. to hav.e to be prefaced with the 

fact that while they are unskilled jobs, for someone 

like Bobby, they're going to require more than thirty 

days to learn, which is the criteria for unskilled work. 

And, it isn't so much that the job task [is] what 

Bobby's going to be required to learn. It's going to be 

the things like going to work daily, personal hygiene, 

work attitudes and things like that." 

Id. tab 61, at 84. She stated that "at some point, he will become 

able to get the job done in a timely and competitive fashion. 

But, at this time, no." Id. at 85 It was her opinion that before 

Platt could enter the competitive job market he would need to 

spend at least nine months to a year in a sheltered workshop or 

transitional home, that he would then need three to six months 

training on the job with a boss who was willing to work with him, 

and that his need for constant supervision made him a candidate 

for selective placement, which would significantly limit the 

number of available jobs. She testified that at present "the only 

thing Platt could do would be work in a sheltered workshop." Id. 

at 88. Although she stated that at some point six occupations 

would be available for Platt, the law is clear that a claimant who 

can only work in a sheltered workshop is disabled. See Atkinson 

v. Bowen, 864 F.2d 67, 70 (8th Cir. 1988); Gavin v. Heckler, 811 

F.2d 1195, 1198 (8th Cir. 1987). 

In view of the undisputed evidence by the vocational expert 

that there are no jobs in the competitive work force which Platt 

can presently do, in my view Platt must be considered disabled. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 89-6279 Document: 01019970747 Date Filed: 04/02/1990 Page: 12 
The fact that he cannot do them because his low IQ prevents him 

from overcoming his cultural deprivation does not . mean that he is 

not disabled by that low IQ. To the contrary, low IQ is the "but 

for" cause of his disability. Accordingly, I would reverse and 

remand with instructions to remand to the Secretary for the award 

of benefits. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 89-6279 Document: 01019970747 Date Filed: 04/02/1990 Page: 13