Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00578/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00578-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN ANTHONY MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-00578-SKO

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S 

COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Steven Anthony Martinez ("Plaintiff") seeks judicial review of a final decision of 

the Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner" or "Defendant") denying his 

application for supplemental security income ("SSI") pursuant to Title XVI of the Social Security 

Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-83. The matter is currently before the Court on the parties' briefs, which 

were submitted, without oral argument, to the Honorable Sheila K. Oberto, United States 

Magistrate Judge.1

 

1 The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge, and the matter was assigned for all 

purposes to Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto. (Docs 8, 9.)

Case 1:14-cv-00578-SKO Document 19 Filed 08/05/15 Page 1 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was born on September 18, 1989 (Administrative Record ("AR") 120), he

completed the tenth grade, and has no vocational or technical certification or training. (AR 33.) 

Plaintiff filed an application for SSI on July 23, 2010, alleging disability beginning on 

September 18, 1989, due to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ("ADHD"). (AR 120, 142.) 

A. Relevant Evidence

On January 4, 2011, Plaintiff underwent a psychological evaluation with Richard Engeln, 

Ph.D. (AR 513-19.) Dr. Engeln administered a Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale 4th Edition 

(WAIS IV), Wechsler Memory Scale III, Bender-Gestalt Test II, Trails A and Trails B, Mental 

Status Exam, and took a diagnostic history. (AR 513.) 

Plaintiff reported that he lived with his parents; he attended high school through the 11th 

grade, but did not graduate; and attended special education classes. (AR 513-14.) On mental 

status examination, there was no evidence of delusions, hallucinations, or confusion. Plaintiff's 

speech was easily understood, appropriate in form and association, and he presented as alert, 

oriented, and with positive social skills. (AR 515.) Plaintiff's fund of knowledge, memory for 

personal events, and organization of history were positive and consistent with his intellectual 

level. (AR 516.) 

As to the testing, Dr. Engeln reported the "[t]est results varied in terms of credibility. 

Obtained intellectual scores appeared to be valid measurements of ability." (AR 516.) On the 

WAIS-IV, Plaintiff's scored as follows: 

Verbal Comprehension = 74; Perceptual Reasoning = 75; Working Memory, an 

auditory function, = 69, high in the mild range of mental retardation; Processing 

Speed, a visual grapho-motor function = 74, borderline; Full Scale IQ = 69, high in 

the mild range of mental retardation. Working memory, an immediate memory 

functioning for non-meaningful material, reflecting processing skills, was measured

79, high borderline.

(AR 516.) Dr. Engeln found the "protocol, in general, is a valid representation of [Plaintiff's] 

abilities; however, concentration issues, and patient's tendency to shut down and withdraw when 

multiple units of information are presented at one time detracted from memory measurements. 

Case 1:14-cv-00578-SKO Document 19 Filed 08/05/15 Page 2 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

These do appear to be ongoing qualities of his personality, but they certainly intrude on 

measurement." (AR 517.) Dr. Engeln provided the following assessment:

[Plaintiff] appears mentally competent to manage funds, and does not report any 

substance abuse issues. As a young adult, continued [advice] and support around 

financial planning would be encouraged. Verbally, cognitively, and socially, 

[Plaintiff] is capable of entry level job adjustment, in a context where instructions 

are unidimensional and normal supervision is provided. Concentration and social 

skills are adequate for work adjustment. [Plaintiff] is able to perform one-to-twostep, simple job instructions, but not able to receive complex or technical job 

instructions. There do not appear to be any psychological restrictions to job 

adjustment. Primary restrictions to job adjustment would be medical-physical in 

nature. 

(AR 518.)

State agency physician R. G. Chahal, M.D., reviewed Plaintiff's records and opined 

Plaintiff could understand and remember simple instructions; maintain concentration, persistence, 

and pace for 2-hour periods sufficient to complete an eight-hour workday; he had limitations in the 

ability to interact with the general public, but was capable of interacting with co-workers and 

supervisors; and could adapt to occasional changes in a work routine and make simple decisions 

commensurate with his level of work. (AR 553.) 

B. Administrative Proceedings

The Commissioner denied Plaintiff's application initially and again on reconsideration; 

consequently, Plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). (AR 54-

57, 68-76.) On June 20, 2012, the ALJ held a hearing. (AR 28-47.) Plaintiff testified, through the 

assistance of counsel, and a vocational expert also gave testimony. (AR 39-67.) 

On July 27, 2012, the ALJ issued a decision finding Plaintiff not disabled. (AR 16-23.) 

The ALJ determined Plaintiff has the Residual Functional Capacity ("RFC")2to lift and carry 10 

pounds occasionally and less than 10 pounds frequently; sit, stand, and/or walk for two hours in an 

eight-hour day; occasionally climb ramps and stairs, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl, but can never 

 

2 RFC is an assessment of an individual's ability to do sustained work-related physical and mental activities in a work 

setting on a regular and continuing basis of 8 hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule. Social 

Security Ruling 96-8p. The RFC assessment considers only functional limitations and restrictions that result from an 

individual’s medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments. Id. "In determining a claimant’s 

RFC, an ALJ must consider all relevant evidence in the record including, inter alia, medical records, lay evidence, and 

'the effects of symptoms, including pain, that are reasonably attributed to a medically determinable impairment.'" 

Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006).

Case 1:14-cv-00578-SKO Document 19 Filed 08/05/15 Page 3 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; may frequently balance, and should avoid even moderate 

exposure to hazardous machinery and heights; and can perform simple routine tasks. (AR 19.)

The ALJ found that Plaintiff (1) has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since July 

23, 2010, the date of his application; (2) has the following severe impairments or combination of 

impairments: congenital heart disease – transposition of great vessels – status post-surgical 

correction, borderline intellectual functioning, conduct disorder, and a history of ADHD; (3) does 

not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one of the 

impairments set forth in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; (4) has no past relevant work; 

but (5) he is able to perform alternative work that exists in significant numbers in the national 

economy. (AR 16-23.) 

Plaintiff sought review of the ALJ's decision before the Appeals Council. (AR 12.) On 

January 13, 2014, the Appeals Council denied review. (AR 6-11.) Therefore, the ALJ's decision 

became the final decision of the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1481.

C. Plaintiff's Contention on Appeal 

Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred in failing to find him disabled under Listing 12.05C at the 

Third Step. The parties agree the ALJ erred in considering Listing 12.05C, but they disagree 

whether remand for further proceedings or reversal for an award of benefits is the appropriate 

remedy.

III. SCOPE OF REVIEW

The ALJ's decision denying benefits "will be disturbed only if that decision is not 

supported by substantial evidence or it is based upon legal error." Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599, 

601 (9th Cir. 1999). In reviewing the Commissioner's decision, the Court may not substitute its 

judgment for that of the Commissioner. Macri v. Chater, 93 F.3d 540, 543 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Instead, the Court must determine whether the Commissioner applied the proper legal standards 

and whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the Commissioner's findings. See 

Lewis v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2007).

"Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance." Ryan v. 

Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 2008). "Substantial evidence" means "such 

Case 1:14-cv-00578-SKO Document 19 Filed 08/05/15 Page 4 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." 

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. NLRB, 

305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). The Court "must consider the entire record as a whole, weighing both 

the evidence that supports and the evidence that detracts from the Commissioner's conclusion, and 

may not affirm simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence." Lingenfelter v. 

Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

IV. APPLICABLE LAW

An individual is considered disabled for purposes of disability benefits if he is unable to 

engage in any substantial, gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or 

mental impairment that can be expected to result in death or that has lasted, or can be expected to 

last, for a continuous period of not less than twelve months. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 

1382c(a)(3)(A); see also Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 23 (2003). The impairment or 

impairments must result from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities that are 

demonstrable by medically accepted clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and must be of 

such severity that the claimant is not only unable to do his previous work, but cannot, considering 

his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial, gainful work that 

exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)-(3), 1382c(a)(3)(B), (D).

The regulations provide that the ALJ must undertake a specific five-step sequential 

analysis in the process of evaluating a disability. In the First Step, the ALJ must determine 

whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). If not, in the Second Step, the ALJ must determine whether the 

claimant has a severe impairment or a combination of impairments significantly limiting her from 

performing basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). If so, in the Third Step, 

the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of 

impairments that meets or equals the requirements of the Listing of Impairments ("Listing"), 

20 C.F.R. 404, Subpart P, App. 1. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). If not, in the Fourth 

Step, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has sufficient residual functional capacity 

despite the impairment or various limitations to perform her past work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 

Case 1:14-cv-00578-SKO Document 19 Filed 08/05/15 Page 5 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

416.920(f). If not, in Step Five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that the claimant 

can perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g). If a claimant is found to be disabled or not disabled at any step in the 

sequence, there is no need to consider subsequent steps. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098-99 

(9th Cir. 1999); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920.

V. DISCUSSION

A. The ALJ's Consideration of Listing 12.05C Was Error

The parties agree the ALJ erred in finding Plaintiff did not meet the elements of Listing 

12.05C at the Third Step of the Sequential Evaluation. The parties disagree, however, as to the 

appropriate remedy. Plaintiff maintains reversal with an award of benefits is required because he 

meets the requirements of Listing 12.05C. The Commissioner contends remand for further 

consideration, rather than reversal, is warranted so the ALJ can make factual findings that are 

necessary to determine whether Plaintiff meets Listing 12.05C.

At the Third Step, the ALJ determines whether a claimant's impairment meets or equals an 

impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. part 404, subpart P, appendix 1. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 

1099 (9th Cir. 1999). The Listing of Impairments describes specific impairments of each of the 

major body systems "which are considered severe enough to permit a person from doing any 

gainful activity." Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525); see also, 20 C.F.R. § 416.925. If a claimant 

meets or equals a listed impairment, he or she will be found disabled at this step without further 

inquiry. Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1099.

The claimant bears the burden of establishing that his or her impairment satisfies all the 

criteria of a particular listing. Id. "For a claimant to show that his impairment matches a listing, it 

must meet all of the specified medical criteria. An impairment that manifests only some of those 

criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify." Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990).

Here, the ALJ found Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments 

that meets or medically equals a Listing. (AR 18.) The ALJ specifically considered Listing 

12.05C, but determined Plaintiff "does not have a valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 60 

Case 1:14-cv-00578-SKO Document 19 Filed 08/05/15 Page 6 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

through 70 and a physical or other mental impairment imposing an additional and significant 

work-related limitation of function." (AR 19.) 

Listing 12.05C is satisfied where a claimant shows (1) subaverage intellectual functioning 

with deficits in adaptive functioning initially manifested before age 22; (2) a valid verbal IQ score 

of 60 to 70; and (3) a physical or other mental impairment imposing an additional and significant 

work-related limitation. 20 C.F.R.pt 404, subpt. P, app. 1, § 12.05C; see also Kennedy v. Colvin, 

738 F.3d 1172, 1174 (9th Cir. 2013)

1. Plaintiff Has a Facially Qualifying IQ Score

The Commissioner contends there is conflicting evidence whether Plaintiff has a valid IQ 

score between 60 and 70. Although Dr. Engeln assessed Plaintiff with a Full Scale IQ of 69, he 

only emphasized Plaintiff's scores in the borderline and average range in his conclusion. Dr. 

Engeln did not mention Plaintiff's lower score in the mild range of mental retardation and opined

Plaintiff would be able to perform simple work, concentrate, and interact appropriately with 

others. It appears, from this conclusion, that Dr. Engeln only endorsed Plaintiff's higher test 

scores in the borderline and average ranges, and not the lower IQ score of 69. The Commissioner 

argues this is consistent with Dr. Chahal's opinion that Plaintiff did not meet or equal any of the 

Listings. 

Plaintiff responds that Dr. Engeln did refer to the lower scores in the mental retardation 

range later in his report. Nonetheless, even if Dr. Engeln had attributed the cause of Plaintiff's 

difficulties to a diagnosis of borderline intellectual functioning rather than mild mental retardation, 

it makes no difference because a diagnosis is not required under the Listing. As to Dr. Engeln's 

opinion that Plaintiff could work, Plaintiff contends it was expected that Plaintiff would be found 

capable of working from a mental standpoint – it is only individuals with an IQ of 59 or less who 

are disabled solely as a result of mental deficiencies. Under Listing 12.05C, however, it is 

Plaintiff's lower IQ of 69 in combination with his physical limitation to sedentary work that render 

him disabled under the Listing. Dr. Chahal's analysis that Plaintiff does not meet or equal a 

Listing considers only Plaintiff's mental limitations, not his other severe conditions which cause 

him limitation. 

Case 1:14-cv-00578-SKO Document 19 Filed 08/05/15 Page 7 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

Plaintiff scored a 69 on a full-scale IQ test administered by Dr. Engeln. On its face, this is 

a qualifying score, but the question is its validity. The ALJ provided no reason for finding that 

Plaintiff does not indeed have a valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 60 to 70. The Ninth 

Circuit has not addressed the factors an ALJ may consider to determine the validity of an IQ score, 

but it is within the ALJ's province to decide whether an IQ score is valid. Thresher v. Astrue, 283 

Fed. Appx. 473, 475 n.6 (9th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) ("We do not doubt that an ALJ can decide 

that an IQ score is invalid . . . [but] [w]e have never decided what information is appropriately 

looked to in deciding validity"). Courts outside the Ninth Circuit permit an ALJ to consider 

several factors in assessing the validity of test results, such as evidence of malingering or feigning 

results, daily activities inconsistent with the alleged impairment, and psychologists' opinions that 

are supported by objective medical findings. Wedge v. Astrue, 624 F. Supp. 2d 1127, 1131 (C.D. 

Cal. 2008) (citing Clay v. Barnhart, 417 F.3d 922, 929 (8th Cir. 2005) (ALJ may disregard a low 

IQ score where the evidence shows substantial malingering and daily activities inconsistent with 

the level of impairment alleged), Soto v. Secretary, 795 F.2d 219, 222 (1st Cir. 1986) (ALJ need 

not accept the IQ score if there is a substantial basis for believing that the plaintiff is feigning 

results), Lowery v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1992) (valid IQ is not conclusive when 

the score is inconsistent with other evidence in the record and claimants' daily activities)). 

The ALJ noted Plaintiff's full scale IQ score of 69, but refused to find this a valid score. In 

stating there was no valid IQ score, the ALJ failed to discuss what factors undercut the validity of 

Dr. Engeln's test results. (See AR 19.) Here, there was no stated basis for finding the IQ score 

invalid, but Dr. Engeln's opinion is equivocal as to validity.3 Although Dr. Engeln stated 

Plaintiff's intellectual scores "appeared to be valid measurements of ability," he also stated that the 

"[t]est results varied in terms of credibility." (AR 516.) Dr. Engeln further noted that the 

"protocol, in general, is a valid representation of [Plaintiff's] abilities . . . but concentration issues, 

 

3

 Dr. Engeln and Dr. Chahal found Plaintiff capable of simple repetitive work, but this is not a reason in itself to 

invalidate the IQ score. As Plaintiff persuasively argues, an IQ between 60 and 70 would not necessarily preclude 

work, which is why Listing 12.05C contains the additional elements: deficient in adaptive functioning as well as 

additional impairments that significantly impact work-related function. In other words, an IQ score between 60 and 

70 does not, by itself, create disability such that an opinion that one can work with an IQ between 60 and 70 is 

dispositive of validity of the test results. Nonetheless, this may be one factor in the ALJ's consideration of validity of 

the test results. 

Case 1:14-cv-00578-SKO Document 19 Filed 08/05/15 Page 8 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

and [his] tendency to shut down and withdraw when multiple units of information are presented at 

one time detract from memory measurements." It is the ALJ's duty to resolve ambiguities in the 

record and make appropriate findings. Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2001). 

As a general rule, remand is warranted where additional administrative proceedings could 

remedy the defects in the Commissioner's decision. See Harmon v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1179

(9th Cir. 2000). There is an outstanding issue regarding the validity of Plaintiff's full scale IQ 

score that requires weighing the evidence and potentially developing the record further – which 

must be done by the fact finder. The apparent equivocation in Dr. Engeln's report regarding the 

validity of the test scores is an issue the ALJ must consider in the first instance along with any 

other evidence in the record that bears on the validity of Plaintiff's IQ score. See Thresher, 

283 Fed. Appx. at 475. 

2. There is Evidence That Plaintiff Has Deficits in Adaptive Functioning

Plaintiff contends the absence of deficits in adaptive functioning was not a stated reason 

the ALJ gave for finding Plaintiff did not meet Listing 12.05C as the ALJ did not consider 

whether Plaintiff suffered deficits in adaptive functioning. Plaintiff maintains the record is clear 

that he has met this element. The Commissioner asserts the ALJ should consider this in the first 

instance upon remand.

Pursuant to Listing 12.05C, mental retardation is "characterized by significant subaverage 

general intellectual functioning with deficits in adaptive functioning." 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P., 

App. 1, § 12.05C. Beyond a qualifying IQ score, which establishes "significant subaverage 

general intellectual functioning," a claimant must demonstrate deficiencies in adaptive 

functioning. When determining whether a claimant demonstrates deficits in adaptive functioning, 

courts consider a variety of factors, including a claimant's poor academic performance, 

participation in special education, and work history. See, e.g., Rocha ex rel. A.R. v. Astrue, No. 

CV–11–3006–CI, 2012 WL 4903586, at *4–5 (E.D. Wash. Oct.16, 2012); Lewis v. Astrue, No. 

CV10–63–SU, 2011 WL 1085254 (D. Or. Feb.15, 2011), recommendation adopted by Lewis v. 

Astrue, NO. CV–10–63–SU, 2011 WL 1042676 (D.Or. Mar.22, 2011); Ware ex rel. v. Shalala, 

902 F. Supp. 1262, 1271 (E.D.Wash.1995); Christner v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 790, 793 (9th Cir.

Case 1:14-cv-00578-SKO Document 19 Filed 08/05/15 Page 9 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

2007)). Pursuant to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV, Text Revisions 

("DSM–IV–TR"), American Psychiatric Association (4th ed. 2000), deficits in adaptive 

functioning must be demonstrated in at least two of the following areas: communication, self-care,

home living, social/interpersonal skills, use of community resources, self-direction, functional 

academic skills, work, leisure, health, and safety. DSM–IV–TR at 49.

There is evidence that Plaintiff suffers from deficits in adaptive functioning. Plaintiff did 

not finish high school and was enrolled in special education classes during the course of his 

academic career. (AR 33.) He lives at home with his mother (AR 33), he had a job but was fired 

because he was unable to "take down the orders right" (AR 35), and has been unable to pass the 

driver's license exam (AR 33). The ALJ entirely failed to consider the second element, and there 

is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that Listing 12.05C's second prong has 

been satisfied. The ALJ should consider the relevant evidence and make a determination about 

whether Plaintiff has satisfied this element.

3. Plaintiff Has Additional and Significant Limitations of Function

"An impairment imposes a significant work-related limitation of function when its effect 

on a claimant's ability to perform basic work activities is more than slight or minimal." Fanning v. 

Bowen, 827 F.2d 631, 633 (9th Cir.1987). "A finding of a severe impairment at the Second Step is 

a per se finding of an 'impairment imposing additional and significant work-related limitations of 

function’ as defined in Listing 112.05." Robinson v. Cmm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 2015 WL 925609, 

at * 5 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2015), Washington v. Colvin, No. 2:14-cv-0051-KJN, 2013 WL 4517911, 

at *8 (E.D.Cal. Aug.26, 2013) (citing Fanning, 827 F.2d at 633). The Ninth Circuit has indicated 

that an additional impairment need not even reach the "severe" limit in order for a claimant to 

satisfy the final requirement of Listing 12.05(C). Fanning, 827 F.2d at 633, n. 3 ("We emphasize, 

however, that a finding of severity is not required to satisfy the more than slight or minimal effect 

standard."); see also Edwards v. Heckler, 755 F.2d 1513 1515 (11th Cir. 1985) (holding that 

"significant" work-related limitation of function involves something more than "minimal" but less 

than "severe").

Case 1:14-cv-00578-SKO Document 19 Filed 08/05/15 Page 10 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

The ALJ found Plaintiff has severe impairments beyond his borderline intellectual 

functioning. (AR 18.) Specifically, Plaintiff has severe impairments of congenital heart disease, 

status-post surgical correction, conduct disorder, and a history of attention deficit hyperactivity 

disorder. (AR 18.) Due to these conditions, the ALJ found Plaintiff limited to sedentary 

exertional level work comprised of simple routine tasks. (AR 19.) As Plaintiff has severe 

conditions beyond his borderline intellectual functioning, this element of Listing 12.05C is 

satisfied. The ALJ's finding that there was no other mental or physical impairment imposing any 

additional and significant work-related limitation of function was error and that finding is 

reversed.

B. Remand Rather Than An Award of Benefits Is Warranted

The ALJ did not give any reasons for finding Plaintiff's IQ score of 69 invalid. Dr. Engeln, 

who rendered the score, gave a facially unclear response about the validity of the test results. As 

there is ambiguity in the record combined with a complete lack of reasoning as to the ALJ's 

finding of invalidity, the Court remands for further consideration of Listing 12.05C. The ALJ

shall reconsider the validity of Plaintiff's full scale IQ score. In doing so, the ALJ may develop 

any additional evidence necessary, such as re-contacting Dr. Engeln, if necessary to make a 

decision. Additionally, the ALJ failed to assess whether there were appropriate deficits in 

adaptive functioning, which should be expressly considered on remand. The third element 

requiring an additional impairment that causes significant work-related limitation is satisfied. 

VI. CONCLUSION

After consideration of the Plaintiff's and Defendant's briefs and a thorough review of the 

record, the Court finds that the ALJ's decision is not supported by substantial evidence and is 

therefore REVERSED and REMANDED so the ALJ may conduct further administrative 

proceedings consistent with this order. The Clerk of this Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment 

///

///

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-00578-SKO Document 19 Filed 08/05/15 Page 11 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12

in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social 

Security.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00578-SKO Document 19 Filed 08/05/15 Page 12 of 12