1

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable

Janie S. Mayeron, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-1258

___________

Archie I. Welch, Jr., *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of *

Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: September 4, 2009

Filed: September 9, 2009

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Archie Welch appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the denial of

disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Following de novo

review, see Casey v. Astrue, 503 F.3d 687, 691 (8th Cir. 2007), we conclude that the

decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. 
-2-

Welch, born on July 3, 1962, had worked in the past as a gardener, laundry

worker, and housekeeper, and most recently in a factory as a machinist and then as a

stacker. He had a grand mal seizure for the first time in late 2000. In applying for

benefits, Welch alleged he could no longer work after March 2001 as a result of a

seizure disorder and borderline intellectual functioning. An administrative law judge

(ALJ) conducted a hearing in June 2005, and thereafter determined that (1) Welch’s

seizure disorder and borderline intellectual functioning were severe impairments; (2)

the impairments alone or combined did not meet or equal a listed impairment, given

the infrequency of his seizures and his level of adaptive functioning; (3) Welch’s

allegations regarding his limitations were not fully credible; (4) Welch had the

residual functional capacity (RFC) for simple, repetitive, and routine tasks with no

independent multi-tasking, minimal changes in routine, no more than brief and

superficial contact with the public, and no work at unprotected heights or around

unprotected or dangerous machinery; and (5) consistent with the testimony of the

vocational expert, his past relevant work as a housekeeper was not precluded by his

RFC. The ALJ thus concluded that Welch was not disabled within the meaning of

the Social Security Act. After the Appeals Council denied review, Welch brought this

action. The district court granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment,

rejecting Welch challenge to the finding that he was not disabled under Listing

12.05C, 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, related to mental retardation. 

Upon careful review, we conclude that substantial evidence on the record as a

whole supported the ALJ’s conclusion that Welch’s impairments did not meet the

requirements of Listing 12.05C. See Gonzales v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 890, 894 (8th

Cir. 2006) (claimant bears burden of establishing impairment meets or equals listed

impairment); Maresh v. Barnhart, 438 F.3d 897, 899-900 (8th Cir. 2006) (to meet

Listing 12.05C, claimant must show valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 60-

70, manifested before age 22, and physical or other mental impairment imposing

additional and significant work-related limitation). In particular, Welch’s past IQ

scores ranged from 70 to 83, and the ALJ did not err in finding Welch’s seizure
-3-

disorder, which was well controlled on medication, did not impose additional and

significant work-related limitation of function. See Schultz v. Astrue, 479 F.3d 979,

983 (8th Cir. 2007) (when impairment is controlled by medication or treatment, it

cannot be considered disabling); Clark v. Apfel, 141 F.3d 1253, 1255-56 (8th Cir.

1998) (ALJ may reject IQ scores that are inconsistent with the record, including daily

activities and behavior, and non-treating psychologist’s one-time evaluation is not

entitled to controlling weight); cf. Maresh, 438 F.3d at 900-01 (claimant’s verbal IQ

of 70 and severe personality disorder, manifested by fighting with other children at

young age and current inability to get along with others, met Listing 12.05C

regardless whether he could perform gainful activity); Keller v. Shalala, 26 F.3d 856,

857-58 (8th Cir. 1994) (claimant’s verbal IQ of 67 and migraine headaches, which

ALJ improperly discredited, constituted work-related impairment that was more than

slight or minimal).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________