Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_14-cv-01122/USCOURTS-alnd-2_14-cv-01122-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

J E A N ETTE CH A R LE N E

BREEDLOVE,

Claimant,

vs.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner, Social Security

Administration, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:14-CV-1122-CLS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Claimant, Jeanette Charlene Breedlove, commenced this action on June 12,

2014, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final adverse

decision of the Commissioner, affirming the decision of the Administrative Law

Judge (“ALJ”), and thereby denying her claim for a period of disability and disability

insurance benefits. For the reasons stated herein, the court finds that the

Commissioner’s ruling is due to be affirmed.

The court’s role in reviewing claims brought under the Social Security Act is

a narrow one. The scope of review is limited to determining whether there is

substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the findings of the

Commissioner, and whether correct legal standards were applied. See Lamb v.

Bowen, 847 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988); Tieniber v. Heckler, 720 F.2d 1251, 1253

FILED

 2015 Feb-10 PM 02:08

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:14-cv-01122-CLS Document 13 Filed 02/10/15 Page 1 of 6
(11th Cir. 1983).

Claimant contends that the Commissioner’s decision is neither supported by

substantial evidence nor in accordance with applicable legalstandards. Specifically,

claimant contends that she should have been found to be disabled under Listing

12.05C, addressing intellectual disability.

That Listing states as follows:

Intellectual disability. Intellectual disabilityrefersto significantly

subaverage general intellectual functioning with deficits in adaptive

functioning initially manifested during the developmental period; i.e.,

the evidence demonstrates or supports onset of the impairment before

age 22.

The required level of severity for this disorder is met when the

requirements in A, B, C, or D are satisfied.

. . . .

C. A valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 60 through

70 and a physical or other mental impairment imposing an additional

and significant work-related limitation of function. . . .

20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, appx. 1, § 12.05 (listings) (italics in original, ellipses

supplied).1

1 Effective September 3, 2013, the Social Security

Administration replaced the term mental retardation with the term

intellectual disability as a listed impairment. Change in Terminology:

“Mental Retardation” to “Intellectual Disability,” 78 Fed. Reg.

46,499, 46,4501 (Aug. 1, 2013) (to be codified at 20 C.F.R. pt. 404,

subpt. P, app. 1). This change was made because “the term ‘mental

retardation’ has negative connotations,” and “has become offensive

to many people.” Id. at 46,499. But this change “d[id] not affect the

actual medical definition of the disorder or available programs or

2

Case 2:14-cv-01122-CLS Document 13 Filed 02/10/15 Page 2 of 6
The ALJ acknowledged that claimant received an IQ score of 64 when she was

in the fifth grade,2and it cannot be denied that claimant has physical impairmentsthat

impose significant work-related limitations of function. Indeed, the ALJ found that

claimant had the severe impairments of status post non-ST elevation myocardial

infarction, congestive heart failure, hypertension, asthma, gastroesophageal reflux

disease, arthraliga, and obesity,

3

and she concluded that claimantretained the residual

functional capacity to perform only a reduced range of sedentary work.

4

Even so, the ALJ found that claimant did not satisfy the remaining prefatory

criterion of the Listing, i.e., “deficits in adaptive functioning initially manifested

during the developmental period.” That finding was based upon claimant’s

vocational background and adaptive functioning.

Specifically, the claimant completed 12 years of formal education. She

further possessed the intellectual capacity to comprehend and apply

concepts required by the State to earn certification for the nurse’s

assistance program. She also mastered the techniques necessary to earn

a State issued license to work as a hairstylist. The claimant’s jobs were

also determined by the Vocational Expert to be semi-skilled job[s] and

skilled jobs. The claimant has been able to work and raise four children

services.” Id. at 49,500. 

Frame v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration, – F. App’x – , 2015 WL 150733, *2 n.2

(11th Cir. Jan. 13, 2015) (alteration in original). Thus, even though the ALJ’s decision was “issued

before the change took effect,” this court, like the Eleventh Circuit panel in Frame, will “follow the

agency’s new nomenclature.” Id. at *2 n.2. 

2

 Tr. 23. 

3

 Tr. 22.

4

 Tr. 24. 

3

Case 2:14-cv-01122-CLS Document 13 Filed 02/10/15 Page 3 of 6
. . . , and currently cares for 3 young grandchildren that are not yet in

school and sometimes up to 6 grandchildren ranging in ages 2 to 7. The

claimant also reported that she shops for food and household needs,

cooks, does housework, can take care of personal needs, and can pay

bills. She reported that she has some problems counting change and

reading . . . . This does not establish that the claimant has significant

subaverage general intellectual functioning as required by the

introductory paragraph of [Listing] 12.00. Because the claimant does

not meet the requirements of the introductory paragraph of [Listing]

12.00, the claimant cannot meet the requirements of the listing, even if

she did meet the requirements in paragraphs A, B, C, or D. Therefore,

the claimant does not meet the listing in 12.05.

5

Claimant first argues that the ALJ should have conducted an additional

psychological consultative examination in order to determine claimant’s current IQ. 

There would be no point in conducting such an examination, however, because,

despite acknowledging claimant’s IQ score of 64 from fifth grade, the ALJ

nonetheless found that claimant did not satisfy Listing 12.05C because she did not

meet the prefatory criterion of demonstrating deficits in adaptive functioning.

Claimant also challenges the substance of the ALJ’s finding that she did not

demonstrate sufficient deficits in adaptive functioning. Claimant points out that, even

though she did complete twelve years of formal education, she was in special

education classes. While claimant’s receipt of special education services certainly is

something to be considered, the Eleventh Circuit has decided, albeit in an

unpublished opinion, that a claimant who graduated from high school, but received

5

 Tr. 23 (bracketed alterations and ellipses supplied, citations to the record omitted). 

4

Case 2:14-cv-01122-CLS Document 13 Filed 02/10/15 Page 4 of 6
special education services, did not demonstrate sufficient deficits in adaptive

functioning to satisfyListing 12.05C. See Hickel v. Commissioner of Social Security,

539 F. App’x 980, 984 (11th Cir. 2013). Thus, claimant’s receipt of special education

services, standing alone, does not demonstrate significant deficits in adaptive

functioning. Moreover, the record supportsthe remainder of the ALJ’sfindings about

claimant’s adaptive functioning, and those findings were consistent with applicable

authority. See Garrett v. Astrue, 244 F. App’x 937, 939 (11th Cir. 2007) (holding

that the claimant’s ability to cook simple meals, perform household chores, build

model cars, attend church, watch television, play cards, and walk in the mall were

inconsistent with a finding of significant impairment of adaptive functioning); Outlaw

v. Barnhart, 197 F. App’x 825, 827 (11th Cir. 2006) (stating that the claimant’s “long

work history in semi-skilled positions and daily activities were inconsistent with his

adult IQ scores,” which were below 70); Humphries v. Barnhart, 183 F. App’x 887,

889 (11th Cir. 2006) (holding that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding

that the claimant did not have deficits in adaptive functioning when she worked in a

school cafeteria for 21 years and served as the manager for about 15 years). 

Based on the foregoing, the Commissioner’s finding that claimant is not

disabled was supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with applicable

law. Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. Costs are taxed

5

Case 2:14-cv-01122-CLS Document 13 Filed 02/10/15 Page 5 of 6
against claimant. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this file.

DONE this 10th day of February, 2015.

______________________________

United States District Judge

6

Case 2:14-cv-01122-CLS Document 13 Filed 02/10/15 Page 6 of 6