IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Jefferson D. White, :

Plaintiff : Civil Action 2:10-cv-1037

v. : Judge George C. Smith

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner 

of Social Security, : Magistrate Judge Abel

Defendant

:

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Jefferson D. White's June 8, 2011

objections to Magistrate Judge Abel's May 27, 2011 Report and Recommendation. The

Court, having reviewed the record de novo, determines that there is substantial evidence

supporting the administrative law judge's determination that plaintiff Jefferson D.

White is not disabled within the meaning of the Act. The Court further finds for the

reasons set out below that plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation are

without merit.

Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge failed to consider extensive evidence

that would support a finding that plaintiff has the requisite deficits in adaptative

functioning to meet Listing 12.05C. Plaintiff argues that his ability prepare meals from a

can, use the microwave, and make sandwiches does not mean that he is not mentally

retarded because the listing does not require an individual to be incapable of very

Case: 2:10-cv-01037-GCS-MRA Doc #: 14 Filed: 06/22/11 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
simple tasks. The fact that Mr. White cannot cook anything more complicated than

warming a can of soup supports a finding that there are deficits in adaptive

functioning. Plaintiff also argues that the Magistrate Judge has failed to show any

evidence that would support a finding he can live independently. Mr. White lives with

his wife, and he is dependent on her to remind him about his appointments and

medications. His wife also performs all of the cooking and cares for the children. 

Plaintiff further argues that the Magistrate Judge failed to recognize that plaintiff's

insufficient work history is indicative of his deficits in adaptive functioning. His work

record demonstrates his difficulty in keeping a job for any length of time, and the

majority of his past work was unskilled. 

The administrative law judge stated:

The record does not [show] significant deficits in adaptive functioning

before the age of 22. The claimant has lived, and currently lives,

independently, has a successful history of successful work activity, and

demonstrates no difficulties in personal functioning, such as bathing,

grooming, and feeding. The record does contain IQ scores within the

required range, and as noted by Dr. White, a diagnosis of mental

retardation is not appropriate because there is no evidence that the

claimant functioned within that level of intellect at any time prior to age

22. Accordingly, it cannot be found that the claimant’s impairment

satisfies the requirements of paragraph C.

. . . 

[T]here is no basis to find that the IQ scores obtained by Dr. White are

invalid. However, as set forth above, the record does not support a

finding that the claimant experienced significant adaptive deficits during

the developmental period and, therefore, the only appropriate diagnosis

is borderline intellectual functioning.

(R. 21-22.) The Report and Recommendation states:

The administrative law judge noted that Dr. White diagnosed plaintiff

with borderline intellectual functioning and illiteracy. (R. 24.) The

2

Case: 2:10-cv-01037-GCS-MRA Doc #: 14 Filed: 06/22/11 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
administrative law judge concluded that plaintiff retained the ability to

understand, remember, follow instructions and perform simple repetitive

tasks, and no evidence contradicted this finding. Id. The administrative

law judge acknowledged that plaintiff had valid IQ scores necessary to

meet Listing 12.05(C). The administrative law judge concluded, however,

that the record did not contain any evidence suggesting that plaintiff had

the requisite deficits in adaptive functioning. He relied plaintiff’s

previous employment, his ability to live independently, and the fact that

the consultative psychologist refrained from diagnosing mental

retardation. 

The record contains substantial evidence supporting the

administrative law judge’s decision. While its true that plaintiff’s school

records indicate his scores were in the educable mentally retarded range,

no additional factors that affected his educational performance were

identified. (R. 75-76.) A questionnaire concerning plaintiff’s daily

activities indicated that he used to help with caring for his children and

completing housework, but he was no longer able to. His inability to

perform these activities was the result of his physical impairment rather

than mental retardation. (R. 114.) He also reported that he could prepare

meals from a can, microwave meals, and make sandwiches. (R. 115.) He

could occasionally do the laundry, but he required help with lifting. (R.

116.) His limitations in his daily activities were primarily attributed to a

physical impairment, not a mental impairment. He also reported that he

spent time with others playing cards and visited with sister and father-inlaw. (R. 117.) Plaintiff argues that the record demonstrates that he had

difficulty performing activities of daily living, and relied on the statement

of the examining psychologist that he had poor hygiene. His poor hygiene

also seems attributable to his complaints of back and shoulder pain.

According to a treatment note from Holzer Medical Clinic, plaintiff “does

not seem to be able to do much, and [his wife] is having to help him get

out of bed and perform ADLs.” (R. 202). The administrative jaw judge’s

finding is also supported by the Dr. Williams, the state agency

psychologist. 

Doc. 12 at 11-12 (footnotes omitted). Although plaintiff argues that White's employment

history suggests he was not able to hold a job for long, as the Magistrate Judge noted,

White maintained long-term employment from 1997 until he last worked in 2004. He

was employed by one employer during 1997-1999, and he worked five years for his last

employer. (R. 121 and 256.) Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. The record contains

3

Case: 2:10-cv-01037-GCS-MRA Doc #: 14 Filed: 06/22/11 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
substantial evidence supporting the administrative law judge’s conclusion that White

did not have the requisite deficits in adaptive functioning. Despite plaintiff’s insistence

that a sporadic employment history demonstrated deficits, plaintiff also had periods of

employment that demonstrate a lack of such deficits. Furthermore, the record also

suggests that plaintiff’s limitations were the result of a physical impairment rather than

mental retardation. 

Upon de novo review in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§636(b)(1)(B), the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's motion

for summary judgment is DENIED. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is

GRANTED. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. The Clerk of Court is

DIRECTED to enter JUDGMENT for defendant. This action is hereby DISMISSED.

 /S/ George C. Smith 

George C. Smith

United States District Judge 

4

Case: 2:10-cv-01037-GCS-MRA Doc #: 14 Filed: 06/22/11 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>