Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02677/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02677-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

Michael J. Astrue has been appointed to serve as Commissioner of Social

Security and is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 43(c)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2677

___________

Laura Nicola, * 

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa.

Michael J. Astrue,1 *

Commissioner, Social Security *

Administration, * 

* 

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: January 12, 2007

Filed: March 28, 2007

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Laura Nicola, appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the

decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

(“Commissioner”) denying her application for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”)

Appellate Case: 06-2677 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/28/2007 Entry ID: 3292700
-2-

under Title II of the Social Security Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 405. We reverse and

remand.

I.

On July 2, 2001, Nicola applied for DIB benefits. The administrative law

judge (“ALJ”) issued the final decision of the Commissioner on September 9, 2004.

 Following a denial of review by the Appeals Council, Nicola appealed the denial of

benefits to the district court. The district court affirmed the findings of the

Commissioner. From that decision, Nicola appeals.

II.

 When the ALJ’s decision was issued, Nicola was forty-six years old and had

a high school education. Her past relevant work included that of kitchen helper,

tagger, housekeeper, parking enforcement officer, hospital housekeeper, and telephone

switchboard operator. Nicola alleged that she was disabled due to history of stroke

which resulted in speech impediment, migraine and tension headaches, borderline

intellectual functioning, inability to multiply, inability to divide or use fractions,

difficulty reading, disc bulge at L4-5 on right side, low back pain, radiculopathy,

depression, anxiety, fatigue, Raynaud’s syndrome, pain, loss of dexterity, carpal

tunnel syndrome, tendinitis, disc collapse at C5-6, stenosis at C6-7, pain in left

shoulder and neck, coronary artery disease, mild degenerative changes in shoulder,

Sneddon’s syndrome, and history of heart attack. 

First, the ALJ found that Nicola had not engaged in substantial gainful activity

since July 29, 2000. At step two, the ALJ determined that Nicola suffered from severe

Raynaud’s syndrome, degenerative disc disease at C5-6 and C6-7, mild degenerative

Appellate Case: 06-2677 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/28/2007 Entry ID: 3292700
-3-

changes in the right shoulder, disc bulging at L4-5 with complaints of low back and

right leg pain, mild carpal tunnel syndrome on the right, slurred speech, headaches,

and coronary artery disease. The ALJ then determined that Nicola’s severe

impairments did not meet or equal any listed impairment. Next, the ALJ determined

that Nicola could not perform her past relevant work. Relying on the testimony of a

vocational expert (“VE”), the ALJ determined at step five that Nicola was not

disabled. The district court agreed and affirmed the Commissioner’s final decision.

III.

We review de novo a district court’s decision upholding the denial of an

application for social security benefits. Pelkey v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 575, 577 (8th

Cir. 2006). Our role on review is to determine if the Commissioner’s findings are

supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Baker v. Barnhart, 457

F.3d 882, 892 (8th Cir. 2006); McKinney v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 860, 863 (8th Cir. 2000).

Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind would find adequate to

support the ALJ’s conclusion. Lacroix v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 881, 885 (8th Cir. 2006).

In considering the evidence, we must consider both evidence that supports and

evidence that detracts from the Commissioner’s decision. Karlix v. Barnhart, 457

F.3d 742, 746 (8th Cir. 2006). We will disturb the ALJ’s decision only if it falls

outside the available “zone of choice.” Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 936 (8th

Cir. 2006). An ALJ’s decision is not outside the “zone of choice” simply because we

might have reached a different conclusion had we been the initial finder of fact. Id.

Consequently, we may not reverse the decision to deny benefits unless the record

contains insufficient evidence to support the outcome. Culbertson v. Shalala, 30 F.3d

934, 939 (8th Cir. 1994).

Appellate Case: 06-2677 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/28/2007 Entry ID: 3292700
-4-

On appeal, Nicola asserts that the ALJ erred in failing to include her diagnosis

of borderline intellectual functioning as a severe impairment at step two of the

sequential analysis. A diagnosis of borderline intellectual functioning should be

considered severe when the diagnosis is supported by sufficient medical evidence. 

Hunt v. Massanari, 250 F.3d 622, 625-26 (8th Cir. 2001). The Commissioner

concedes that the ALJ should have considered Nicola’s borderline intellectual

functioning to be a severe impairment, but relies on Howard v. Massanari, 255 F.3d

577, 581-82 (8th Cir. 2001), in arguing that this was harmless error. The

Commissioner’s reliance on Howard is misplaced. The issue in Howard was not

whether the individual’s diagnosis of borderline intellectual functioning was a severe

impairment; rather, the issue was whether the hypothetical question posed to a VE

adequately addressed the limitations associated with the diagnosis of borderline

intellectual functioning. Therefore, we reject the Commissioner’s argument of

harmless error. We are persuaded by Nicola’s assertion and the Commissioner’s

concession that the ALJ erred in failing to find that her diagnosis of borderline

intellectual functioning was a severe impairment. 

Nicola also asserts that the ALJ erred in failing to conduct a psychiatric review

technique analysis. Psychiatric review technique analysis is required to be conducted

and documented at each level of the review process, including the ALJ level. 20

C.F.R. § 416.920a(a)-(e). The technique involves determination of whether there is

a mental impairment followed by a rating of the degree of functional limitation

resulting from the mental impairment. The technique must be conducted at all levels

of the application process, beginning with the initial and reconsideration levels. At

these levels, the psychiatric review technique must be documented by completion of

a standard form. The psychiatric review technique must also be conducted and

documented at the ALJ and Appeals Council levels; however, at these levels, it is

permissible for the analysis to be included within the written decision such that the use

of a written form is not required. 

Appellate Case: 06-2677 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/28/2007 Entry ID: 3292700
-5-

Nicola alleged, and the medical records establish, that she has an I.Q. in the

range of borderline intellectual functioning. Her score on the Wechsler Adult

Intelligence Scale - Third Edition was used to estimate her abilities. She scored at the

fifth percentile compared to a national sample of adults her age. Yet, no psychiatric

review technique analysis is included in the ALJ’s decision; nor is there evidence of

the technique being conducted or documented at the other levels of the application

process. Thus, Nicola’s argument is supported by the record and has merit.

In light of our findings with respect to step two of the sequential analysis and

the psychiatric review technique analysis, it is unnecessary for us to reach Nicola’s

argument with respect to the hypothetical question posed to the VE at step five of the

sequential analysis. 

IV.

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand with

instructions to return the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent

with this opinion.

 

Appellate Case: 06-2677 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/28/2007 Entry ID: 3292700