United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Argued January 30, 2013

Decided February 14, 2013

Before

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 12‐2730

ROBERT J. CHARETTE, JR.,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 11‐CV‐00819

Barbara B. Crabb,

Judge.

O R D E R

Robert Charette was denied disability insurance benefits and supplemental security

income, after claiming that his borderline intellectual functioning and learning disability left

himincapable of gainful employment.Because the administrative law judge’s analysis supports

the finding that Charette does not suffer “deficits in adaptive functioning” and therefore does

not meet the listing criteria for mental retardation, we affirm.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 12‐2730 Page 2

At the age of 39, Charette applied for DIB and SSI, claiming that his learning disability

and illiteracy rendered him unable to work. He completed high school (in special education

classes), but cannot read newspapers or street signs and has trouble remembering tasks and

understanding instructions. He can read “a little kid book” and words like “cheeseburger” and

“fries” on a menu. His math skills are limited to basic arithmetic—addition, subtraction,

multiplication, and division of small numbers. Despite his limitations, he was able to obtain his

driver’s license at age 18 (the test questions were read aloud to him), and he can drive around

his small town.

Since 1993 Charette has worked as a groundskeeper, dishwasher, and car washer, as

well as a full‐time assistant performing simple tasks forroofers, iron workers, and masons. He

obtained his construction jobs by working for family and neighbors. But Charette has been

unemployed since he stopped working in 2007 and has trouble keeping jobs for more than a

year. He explained that he had difficulty retaining jobs thatrequire changes in his daily duties;

he stopped working at construction sites after he was unable to pass the written apprenticeship

tests, and he lost his dishwasher job because his employer wanted him to also cook, which

required reading recipes and written orders.

Charette lives on a tribalreservation with his girlfriend and his threedogs. He takes care

of householdchores, suchas laundry, snow shoveling, cutting firewood, grocery shopping, and

lawn mowing. He lived with his mother before she moved to a nursing home. He relies on his

mother to remind him of appointments and on his girlfriend to help him prepare meals. His

neighbor previously helped him read bills and fill out paperwork, but after she moved,

Charette lost his food stamps benefits because he was unable to read the notice telling him to

set up an appointment for recertification.

In connection with Charette’s application for benefits, Marcus Desmonde, a

psychologist, administered an IQ test and diagnosed Charette with borderline intellectual

functioning and a learning disorder. IQ scores are scaled so that approximately 95% of the

population falls between 70 and 130, with a mean of 100. See American Psychological

Association Task Force, Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns, 51(2) AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST 77,

78 (1996). Charette’s composite IQ score was 67 (with a 95% confidence interval of 64 to 72).

Desmondedescribed the score as consistent with Charette’s educational background butlower

than expected given his work history. An agency doctor, Eric Edelman, reviewed the record

and conducted a “mental residual functional capacity assessment,” concluding that Charette

was “not significantly limited” in 18 of the 20 areas assessed. He determined that Charette was

capable of unskilled work, despite his mild restrictions in daily living and social functioning

and his moderate difficulties maintaining concentration. An agency psychologistreviewed the

medical record and agreed with Edelman’s assessment.
No. 12‐2730 Page 3

At a hearing before the ALJ, a vocational expert testified that Charette’s previous jobs

included unskilled and semi‐skilled work, with exertion levels ranging from medium to very

heavy. He explained that a person limited to simple, routine tasks would be qualified to

perform unskilled work as a hand or machine packer and that there were 9,000 such jobs in

Wisconsin and 50,000 nationally.

The ALJ concluded that Charette was not disabled within the meaning of the Social

Security Act. Following the required five‐step analysis, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4),

416.920(a)(4), the ALJ determined that Charette had not worked since his alleged onset date

(step one); his borderline intellectual functioning and learning disability were severe

impairments (step two); these impairments did not meet or equal the listed impairment for

mentalretardation (stepthree);hehada residualfunctional capacity toperform unskilled work

involving simple and routine tasks, though he could no longer perform his past semi‐skilled

work (step four); and, based on the vocational expert’s testimony, there were jobs that Charette

could perform (step five).

Of significance forthis appeal, the ALJ found that Charette did not meet the criteria for

mental retardation under Listing 12.05(C), which requires a claimant to show (1) “deficits in

adaptive functioning” before age 22, (2) a valid IQ score of 60 through 70, and (3) “a physical

or other mental impairment imposing an additional and significant work‐related limitation of

function.” 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.05(C). The ALJ determined that Charette’s

adaptive functioning was good because he had no problems with daily living or social

functioning. She also found that Charette lacked a valid IQ score in the relevant 60 to 70 range

by adopting Dr. Desmonde’s position. He concluded that the composite score of 67 was

inconsistent with Charette’s extensive work history and thus presumably understated his

mental capabilities. After the Appeals Council denied review, the district court upheld the

decision because the ALJ sufficiently explained why Charette’s daily activities demonstrated

that he did not suffer from “deficits in adaptive functioning.”

On appeal, Charette argues that the ALJ failed to sufficiently explain her reasoning

because she did not apply a measurement tool for “deficits in adaptive functioning” issued by

a professional organization that deals with mentalretardation. As an example, Charette points

to theAmericanPsychiatricAssociation’sdefinitionof “deficits inadaptive functioning,” which

requires deficits in two skill areas out of a list of ten generic skills (including communication,

self care, and social skills), and argues that the evidence in his case compellingly shows that he

meets that definition.

But when we earlier defined deficits in adaptive functioning as the “inability to cope

with the challenges of ordinary everyday life” we did not also require an ALJ to use a specific

measurement method. Novy v. Astrue, 497 F.3d 708, 710 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing American
No. 12‐2730 Page 4

Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 42 (4th ed. 2000)).

As Charette acknowledges, neither this circuit nor any other circuit court has recognized or

established such a requirement.1 Furthermore, the agency itself has stated that use of these

measurement tools is optional. See Technical Revisions to Medical Criteria for Determinations

of Disability, 67 Fed. Reg. 20018, 20022 (Apr. 24, 2002) (“SSA’s definition establishes the

necessary elements, while allowing use of any of the measurement methods recognized and

endorsed by the professional organizations.”). Because the ALJ examined Charette’s ability to

cope with the challenges of daily life, she applied the correct legal standard. See Novy, 497 F.3d

at 710.

Charette next argues thatthe ALJlacked substantial evidence for herfinding and points

to significant evidence thathe faces substantiallimitations indaily living.ButtheALJidentified

the limitations Charette faces, such as difficulty remembering tasks and reading, and then

discussed how he overcomes them well enough to live independently, manage household

chores, take care of his pets, and socialize with other people. Substantial evidence in the record

supports the conclusion that Charette has been able to cope with the difficulties of daily life

despite his intellectual limitations, see Novy, 497 F.3d at 710; Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470,

475–76 (4th Cir. 2012). TheALJ properly evaluated both Charette’s limitations and his adaptive

ability to overcome them, including his ability to reach out to friends and neighbors for help.

Because substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Charette lacks “deficits in

adaptive functioning”—a prerequisite under Listing 12.05(C),see Novy, 497 F.3d at 710—we do

not reach Charette’s remaining arguments concerning the validity of his IQ score.

AFFIRMED.

1

In Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048, 1074 (10th Cir. 2009), the dissenting judge, while

acknowledging that the agency has never adopted a standard, favored remanding and

requiring the ALJ to “choose a standard measurement and notify claimant what it is.”