Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02340/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02340-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2340

___________

Laverne R. Chunn, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, *

Social Security Administration, *

*

Defendant -Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: January 12, 2005

Filed: February 11, 2005 

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, and HANSEN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

Laverne Chunn applied for and was denied disability insurance benefits and

supplemental security income. After receiving an unfavorable decision from the

administrative law judge (ALJ) and being denied review by the Appeals Council, she

sought judicial review of the Commissioner's determination that she was not disabled

within the meaning of the Social Security Act. The district court dismissed Chunn's

case with prejudice, affirming the Commissioner's decision. Chunn appeals, arguing

that she meets the regulatory definition for mental retardation and that the vocational

expert was asked a misleading hypothetical. We reverse and remand.

Appellate Case: 04-2340 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/11/2005 Entry ID: 1866625 
-2-

Chunn was born in 1977 and has a high school education that focused on

special education and resource classes. She has worked in the past as an operator of

a knitting machine in a factory and as a food preparer for a restaurant buffet. She says

she was fired from the factory job because she missed too many days after becoming

ill from breathing the lint produced at her workplace, and she left the restaurant job

because she was bothered by morning sickness when pregnant. Chunn contends that

she is disabled because she is mentally retarded and has breathing difficulties and

speech problems.

Upon receiving Chunn's application, the Commissioner ordered an intellectual

assessment and evaluation of adaptive functioning. Mary Ellen Ziolkow, Ph.D., met

with Chunn and administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised.

Chunn's responses resulted in a verbal IQ score of 54, a performance IQ score of 48,

and a full scale IQ score of 46. As Dr. Ziolkow noted, this full scale score falls within

the moderate retardation range of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV). Dr. Ziolkow stated in her report that in her opinion

Chunn did not appear very well motivated and that her test results probably

underestimated her level of intellectual functioning. She concluded that Chunn

probably falls in the mild retardation range. The DSM-IV considers IQ scores from

55 to 70 to be within the mild retardation range. 

Dr. Ziolkow also evaluated Chunn's communication skills, social functioning,

physical development, concentration, and personal responsibility. She observed that

Chunn's language development and comprehension were below average. In

evaluating her social functioning, Dr. Ziolkow noted that Chunn has no friends and

is separated from her husband and does not know why. She lives with and cares for

her two children and attends church although she is shy about it. Dr. Ziolkow also

reported that Chunn cares for her own personal needs and does the cleaning, cooking,

and laundry for the household by herself. Someone takes Chunn to the store, but she

does her own shopping. Chunn reported that she can make change and can use a

Appellate Case: 04-2340 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/11/2005 Entry ID: 1866625 
-3-

checkbook, but her account was overdrawn and closed. In Dr. Ziolkow's assessment,

Chunn's ability to understand, to carry out and remember instructions, and to respond

appropriately to supervision, coworkers, and work pressure is below average to poor.

Dr. Ziolkow concluded that Chunn's adaptive functioning is consistent with an IQ at

the low end of the mild retardation range. 

After Chunn's application was denied initially and on reconsideration, she

received a hearing. The ALJ heard testimony from Chunn, who was unrepresented,

and a vocational expert. Chunn testified that she cannot read well, can write "a little

bit," cannot add or subtract big numbers, can count money but not "backwards," and

has trouble understanding others and being understood herself. She also described

respiratory problems she has had. She testified that she spends her days cleaning her

home and looking for part time work at fast food restaurants while her children are

in day care. 

In the course of his decision the ALJ engaged in the familiar five step analysis

outlined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920. At the first step he found that Chunn

had not engaged in substantial gainful activity after her alleged onset date of

September 29, 2000. Next, he found that Chunn's impairments, which he

characterized as "mild-borderline mental retardation" and "asthma well controlled,"

were severe within the meaning of the Social Security regulations. Third, he found

that her impairments do not meet or equal one of the impairments listed in the

regulations as requiring a finding of disability. 

The ALJ then evaluated Chunn's residual functional capacity for use in steps

four and five of the disability analysis. He concluded that she has no exertional

limitations but that "on the basis of a history of borderline intellectual functioning and

intermittent seasonal sinus allergies the claimant would be limited to entry-level

unskilled work activity that would not expose the claimant to chemical odors or

fumes." The ALJ further stated that Chunn has the ability to work well with the

Appellate Case: 04-2340 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/11/2005 Entry ID: 1866625 
-4-

public and supervisors and can make change and count money. He commented that

in spite of Chunn's limited intellectual abilities, she has functioned independently in

daily activities and has successfully worked at the substantial gainful level. He also

noted that there has been no deterioration in Chunn's mental capacity.

The ALJ's determinations in steps four and five were based on the testimony

of the vocational expert. The ALJ had described to the expert a hypothetical person

with the following characteristics: borderline intellect and seasonal allergies; cannot

work in extreme temperatures or with heavy chemicals, dust, or fumes; can perform

simple unskilled work and read and follow simple concrete instructions; can work

with the public, coworkers, and supervisors without restriction; can meet and greet

and make change; and cannot do telemarketing jobs because of speech problems. The

vocational expert testified that the person described could not do the work Chunn had

done in the factory or restaurant. The ALJ relied on this testimony to determine at

step four that Chunn could not do her past relevant work. The vocational expert also

testified that the person described could work as a cafeteria attendant or cashier and

that this work exists in significant numbers in the national economy. The ALJ relied

on this testimony to determine at step five that Chunn is not disabled because she

could perform other work in the national economy.

The Appeals Council denied Chunn's request for review of the ALJ's

unfavorable decision, making it the final decision of the Commissioner. The district

court affirmed the Commissioner's decision. On appeal to this court, Chunn urges

reversal on two grounds. First, she contends that she is disabled under the listing for

mental retardation and that the ALJ erred at step three by concluding that her

impairments do not meet or equal one of the listed impairments. Second, Chunn

contends that the vocational expert's testimony regarding her ability to perform other

work does not constitute substantial evidence to support the ALJ's step five

determination. Chunn argues that it was not proper to rely on this testimony because

it was given in response to a hypothetical question which did not accurately represent

Appellate Case: 04-2340 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/11/2005 Entry ID: 1866625 
1

Chunn makes no argument that her scores as tested by Dr. Ziolkow are valid.

If these scores were valid, she would be considered mentally retarded under listing

-5-

her limitations and because the jobs identified by the expert require even more ability

than the hypothetical attributed to her.

We review de novo a district court's decision affirming the denial of social

security benefits. See Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 971 (8th Cir. 2000). In

conducting this review, we must "determine whether the Commissioner's decision is

supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole." Davis v. Apfel, 239 F.3d

962, 966 (8th Cir. 2001). Substantial evidence "is less than a preponderance, but is

enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the Commissioner's

conclusion." McKinney v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 860, 863 (8th Cir. 2000). To determine

whether the evidence is substantial, "we consider evidence that detracts from the

Commissioner's decision as well as evidence that supports it." Id.

Chunn's first argument is that she is disabled under listing 12.05C for mental

retardation. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App.1, § 12.05C. Listing 12.05 defines

mental retardation as "significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning with

deficits in adaptive functioning initially manifested during the developmental period."

A claimant who is found to be mentally retarded under this listing is presumed

disabled at step three without further inquiry. A claimant will be considered mentally

retarded if she meets one of four sets of requirements, including the requirements

contained in subsection 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." 

Chunn argues that she meets the IQ requirement of listing 12.05C, noting that

Dr. Ziolkow assessed her IQ as being at the low end of the mild retardation range

which is 55 through 70 and thus within the range identified in the listing.1

 She also

Appellate Case: 04-2340 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/11/2005 Entry ID: 1866625 
12.05B, which requires "[a] valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 59 or less."

-6-

claims she has two additional and significant limitations that satisfy the second

requirement of listing 12.05C. Chunn first points to her speech problems. To support

the claim that she is significantly limited by her speech, she cites Dr. Ziolkow's

observation that her language development and comprehension are below average,

her own testimony that other people have trouble understanding her, and the ALJ's

limitation in his hypothetical question to the vocational expert that Chunn cannot

work as a telemarketer. 

Chunn also claims to be limited by the breathing difficulties she experiences

as a result of sinus problems, allergies, and asthma. She cites doctor visits, her

testimony that she was fired from her job as a knitting machine operator because the

lint made her sick and caused her to miss work, and the ALJ's finding that she is

limited to work that would not expose her to chemical odors or fumes. Chunn asserts

that whether considered alone or together, her speech problems and breathing

difficulties fit this court's analysis of a significant limitation for purposes of listing

12.05C. See Cook v. Bowen, 797 F.2d 687, 690 (8th Cir. 1986) ("An impairment

imposes significant limitations when its effect on a claimant's ability to perform basic

work is more than slight or minimal.").

The ALJ's decision does not mention listing 12.05C, nor does it otherwise

indicate that he considered the listing to be relevant to Chunn's disability claim. His

discussion of step three is quite general, saying that he had reviewed the evidence,

including findings and opinions of experts, and did not find any evidence to show the

existence of an impairment that meets the criteria of the impairments listed in the

regulations. On appeal the Commissioner does not challenge Chunn's assertion that

her speech problems and breathing difficulties pose significant work related

limitations as required by listing 12.05C. The Commissioner focuses on the argument

that Chunn has not shown she meets the IQ requirement of the listing.

Appellate Case: 04-2340 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/11/2005 Entry ID: 1866625 
-7-

The only evidence in the record that directly addresses Chunn's IQ is the

evaluation and assessment prepared by Dr. Ziolkow. She did not give an opinion as

to a particular IQ number, but she estimated that Chunn's IQ was within the mild

retardation range. She also stated that an IQ at the low end of the mild retardation

range is consistent with her assessment of Chunn's adaptive functioning. The ALJ's

discussion of Dr. Ziolkow's report noted two discrepancies in it: her report mentioned

Chunn's work at the restaurant but not at the factory, and it mentioned Chunn's use

of medication for asthma even though there was no medical evidence for it. The ALJ

did not otherwise criticize or challenge Dr. Ziolkow's evaluation and assessment. The

ALJ also provided no explanation or support in the record for his characterization of

Chunn's limitations as "mild-borderline retardation" or "borderline intellectual

functioning."

An ALJ may reject IQ scores that are inconsistent with a claimant's daily

activities and behavior, especially when the scores are based on a one time

examination by a nontreating psychologist. Clark v. Apfel, 141 F.3d 1253, 1255 (8th

Cir. 1998). In this case, however, the ALJ did not explicitly reject the psychologist's

opinion, much less explain why her opinion should not be relied on. The

Commissioner defends the ALJ's substitution of his lay opinion for that of the expert

by arguing that he had to look at Chunn's activities to determine her mental capacity

because she had not given her best efforts when taking the tests. This argument does

not adequately consider the fact that Dr. Ziolkow also took Chunn's activities into

account when forming her expert opinion. She might not have known about Chunn's

past work at the factory, but that alone would not completely undercut an opinion

which considered many aspects of Chunn's adaptive functioning. Moreover, the

ALJ's decision fails to explain how Chunn's activities and behaviors are inconsistent

with Dr. Ziolkow's characterization of her mental capacity.

We have carefully reviewed the record and cannot conclude that the decision

is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. The ALJ failed to

Appellate Case: 04-2340 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/11/2005 Entry ID: 1866625 
-8-

support his finding on step three that Chunn's impairments did not equal a listed

impairment, and it is not clear from his decision that he even considered whether

Chunn met the requirements for listing 12.05C. For these reasons, the case must be

remanded for further consideration and findings, and we need not address Chunn's

arguments about errors committed at step five.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the district court with instructions to

remand the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this

opinion.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2340 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/11/2005 Entry ID: 1866625