Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01012/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01012-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Appellee
Alan W. Simmons
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1012

___________

Alan W. Simmons, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States 

* District Court for the Western 

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, * District of Missouri

Commissioner of *

Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: September 17, 2004

Filed: October 14, 2004 

___________

Before MURPHY, MCMILLIAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Alan W. Simmons appeals, seeking Supplemental Security Income under Title

XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq. The Administrative Law

Judge initially decided Simmons was disabled under the Listing of Impairments in 20

C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, § 12.05. The Social Security Administration's

Division of Disability Quality Operations concluded that insufficient evidence

supported the ALJ's decision. On its own motion, the Appeals Council remanded

Simmons' case. 

Appellate Case: 04-1012 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/14/2004 Entry ID: 1821733 
1

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the

District of Missouri. 

-2-

At the second hearing, the ALJ held Simmons did not have a "disability" as

defined in the Act. The Appeals Council denied review. Thus, the ALJ's decision

stands as the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration. The district court1

 affirmed the Commissioner. Jurisdiction being

proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this Court now affirms.

This Court must affirm the ALJ's determination of disability if it is supported

by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Jones v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 697,

698 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)). Substantial evidence is evidence

sufficient for a reasonable person to find adequate to support the ALJ's conclusions.

Id.

Simmons argues that the ALJ erred in concluding he did not meet the

requirements for mental retardation under § 12.05. To satisfy § 12.05, Simmons

must show a "significantly subaverage" intelligence that initially manifested before

age 22. See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, § 12.05, implemented in 20 C.F.R.

404.1520(d) (2004). 

In primary and secondary school, Simmons took four IQ tests, scoring from 93

to 116. He did not receive special education or similar services, and was never

classified as mentally retarded. Simmons attended regular classes until dropping out

of school in the 10th grade. 

At age 38, Simmons sustained a closed head injury during an assault. Five

years later, he was diagnosed as blind in one eye and having a full-scale IQ of 67,

which the ALJ found valid. Because Simmons has a full-scale IQ of 67 and a

physical impairment, he contends this Court must assume that his mental retardation

Appellate Case: 04-1012 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/14/2004 Entry ID: 1821733 
-3-

manifested before age 22. He cites this Court's footnote in Sird v. Chater, 105 F.3d

401, 403 n.4 (8th Cir. 1997), referencing Luckey v. Department of Health & Human

Services, 890 F.2d 666 (4th Cir. 1989). Luckey stated, "in the absence of any

evidence of a change in a claimant's intelligence functioning, it must be assumed that

the claimant's IQ [has] remained relatively constant." 890 F.2d at 668. The Fourth

Circuit held that Luckey's full-scale IQ of 68 was a lifelong condition because there

was no evidence of a decline in his intelligence. Id. Luckey did not take an IQ test

before age 22 and could barely read or write. Id. Here, to the contrary, there is

evidence of a change in Simmons' intellectual functioning. Before age 22, Simmons'

IQ scores were average. Treating physicians reported Simmons' IQ likely

deteriorated as a result of his head injury after age 22. Simmons himself testified his

headaches and memory loss were attributable to the head injury.

"Mental retardation" in § 12.05 refers to "significantly subaverage" intelligence

manifesting itself during the "developmental" period, i.e., before age 22. "The

threshold requirement for § 12.05 is mental retardation that has manifested itself

before age 22." Goose v. Apfel, 238 F.3d 981, 984 (8th Cir. 2001). Simmons is not

disabled within § 12.05 because there is no evidence indicating the onset of

"significantly subaverage" intelligence before age 22. Simmons objects to the

reliability of the school IQ scores, but produces no evidence discrediting the scores.

Although Simmons did have intermittent academic difficulty and dropped out of

school in the 10th grade, these do not demonstrate or support the onset of an

impairment before age 22. 

Substantial evidence in the record supports the ALJ's decision. The judgment

of the district court is affirmed. 

Appellate Case: 04-1012 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/14/2004 Entry ID: 1821733