## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### Ju n e 6, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT AL ONZ O N. L AX, P lain tiff -A p p e llan t, v. N o. 06- 3173 M I C H A E L J . A ST R U E , C om m i s s i onerof S o c i a l S e c u r i ty, D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF KANS AS ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CV- 4 0 3 0 - S AC ) S c o tt L . Jo h n so n , T ilt o n & T ilt o n , C h td ., T o p e k a , K a n sa s, f o r P lain tiff

-A p p e llan t. Chr i s t i naY ou ng M e i n, Spe c i a l A s s i s t a ntU ni t e d St a t e s A tt orne y , Tope ka , K a ns a s ( Er i c F. M e lg re n , U n ited S tate s A tto rn e y , T o p e k a , K a n sa s; F ra n k V . S m ith III, C h ief C o u n se l, R e g io n V II, S o c ial S e c u rityA d m in istra tio n , w ith h e r o n th e b rie f ), f o r D e f e n d a n tA ppel l ee. B ef o re B R I S C O E , M c W I L L I A M S , andTY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. B RI S CO E , C i r cui tJ udge.

A l onzo Lax ( “Lax”) appea l s the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or deraff i rm i ng the dec i s i on of the C o m m iss io n e r o f

S o c ial S e c u rityto d e n yL a x ’s a p p lica tio n f o r so c ial s e c u rityd isa b ili tyW hi l e Lax’ s fi r s tcl ai m forSSD w as pendi ng, hi s cl ai m forSSI w as deni ed 1 i ni t i a l l ya ndon r e c on s i de r a t i on . H i s SSI c l a i m w a s s ub s e qu e nt l yc ombi ne d wi th h i s SSD (continued...)

- 2- benef i t s ( “SSD ”) and s uppl ement al s ecur i tyi ncome benefi t s ( “SSI ”) underT i t l es I I and X V I of the Soci al Secur i tyA ct , 42 U . S. C . §§ 401( a) - ( m ) and 42 U . S. C . § 1381. L ax co n tend s tha t th e A d m inistrati v e L aw Ju d g e (“ A L J”) e rred in d eterm ining that L ax ’s i m p a i rm e n td i d n o tm e e to rm e d i c a l l ye q u a l L i s t i n g 1 2 . 0 5 ( B ) f o rm e n t a l r e t a r d a t i o n . We concl ude thati n the abs ence of a va l i d I Q s cor e of 59 orl es s , the s ever i typr ong ( B ) of L ist ing 1 2 . 0 5 is no t m et, an d that m ak ing fa ctua l determ ination s o n the v ali d ityo f a n IQ s cor e i s w i thi n the pr ovi nce of an A L J and w i l l be uphel d w hen s upport ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 42 U . S. C . § 405( g) and a f f i rm. I. P rocedu ralHistory L ax fi l ed an appl i cat i on forSSD on D ece m ber15, 1999, al l egi ng di s abi l i tyas of D ece m ber31, 1988. H e cl ai m ed thathe w as di s abl ed bec aus e he ha d pai n fr om a pr i or guns hotw ound, coul d notl i ftobj ect s ors t and forext ended pe r i ods of t i m e, had poor conce ntr at i on and mem ory , and s uffe r ed fr om m ent al heal th i s s ues . H i s cl ai m w as deni ed atthe i ni t i al and r econs i der at i on l evel s . A ft erconduct i ng a hea r i ng i n M ar ch of 2001, the A L J rul ed thatL ax w as notdi s abl ed w i thi n the meani ng of the Soci al Secur i tyA ct . L ax fi l ed a r eques tforr evi ew bythe A ppeal s C ounci l , w hi ch w as deni ed. I n J une of 2001, L ax ap p li ed fo r S S I. 1(...continued) 1 c l a i m.

- 3- I n Sept emberof 2001, L ax fi l ed a c om pl ai nti n fede r al court . O n Sept ember17, 2003, the di s tr i ctcourtadopt ed the magi s tr at e j udge’ s R eportand R ecomm endat i on (“ R & R ” ), w h ich c o n c lu d e d th a t th e A L J’s d e c isio n sh o u ldb e re v e rse d a n d re m a n d e d to the C om m i s s i onerforaddi t i onal pr ocee di ngs pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 405( g) . O n r emand, the A ppeal s C ounci l vaca t ed the C om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on and r emanded L ax’ s cas e t o a new A L J . See 20 C . F. R . § 404. 983 ( w hen fe der al courtr emands forfurther cons i der at i on, A ppeal s C ounci l , act i ng on behal f of Com m i s s i oner , m aym ake adeci s i on o r rem an d to A L J). I n Sept emberof 2004, the new A L J hel d a hea r i ng t o cons i derL ax’ s cl ai m s for S S D a n d S S I. I n N o v e m b e r o f 2 0 0 4 , th e A L J is s u e d a d e c is io n d e n y in g L a x b e n e f its . B ec au se th e A p p ea ls C o u n cil rem an d ed L ax ’s ca se to an A L J af ter th e f ed era l cou rt ’s i ni t i al r emand, the A L J ’ s deci s i on s t ands as the fi nal deci s i on of the C om m i s s i onerfor p u rpo ses o f o u r rev iew . 2 0 C . F . R . § § 4 0 4 . 9 8 4 , 4 1 6 . 1 4 8 4 (20 0 6 ) (w h en fe d era l cou rt r emands c as e forfurthercons i der at i on, deci s i on of A L J becomes fi nal deci s i on of C o m m iss io n e r u n les s A p p e a ls C o u n c il as su m e s ju risd ictio n o f c a se ); H a m lin v . B a rn h a rt, 3 6 5 F .3 d 1 2 0 8 , 1 2 1 4 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). L ax then fi l ed a s econd c i vi l act i on i n fede r alcourt . O n O ct ober27, 2005, the m agi s tr at e i s s ued an R& R r ecomm endi ng r ever s al of the C om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on and a r emand forfurtherpr ocee di ngs . A ft err evi ew i ng the C om m i s s i oner ’ s obj ect i ons t o theL a x h a s b e e n in c a rc e ra te d s e v e ra l tim e s d u ri n g th e re le v a n t b e n e f its tim e p e ri o d . 2 U n d e r T itl e II, h e c a n n o t re c e iv e b e n e f its f o r a n ym o n th o r a n yp a rt o f w h ich h e w a s in p ri so n fo r a f

elon y . 2 0 C . F . R . § 4 0 4 . 4 6 8 (20 0 6 ). L a x w a s a lso e n ro lled in “ L R C a re e rs” a n d “ L D IV R E n g lish ” a n d to o k n in th 3 g ra d e s o c ia l s tu d ie s f

o u r t im e s . A p p . a t 1 3 5 . T h e re is n o k e yf o r th e s e a b b re v ia tio n s . L ax as s ert s that“LR ” s t ands for“l earni ng r es our ce” and “D ev” s t ands for “deve l opm ent al . ” A ppel l antR epl yB r i ef a t13.

- 4- R & R , the di s tr i ctcourtr ej ect ed the magi s tr at e j udge’ s r ecomm endat i on and af fi rm ed the d e c is io n o f

th e C o m m is s io n e r o n M a rc h 9 , 2 0 0 6 . Me d ica l B a c k

g ro u n d /E v ide n c e o

f D isa b ili ty L ax compl et ed the t enth gr ade, butdi d notfi ni s h the el eventh gr ade be caus e he w as i ncar cer at ed forbatt ery . H e t es t i fi ed athi s fi r s tadmi ni s tr at i ve hea r i ng thathe t ook 2 s peci al educa t i on cl as s es thr ough al l l evel s of hi s s chool i ng and r ece i ved most l yD s and Fs . Hi s e d u c a t i o n a l r e c o r d s c o n f i rm hi s g r a d e s a n d i ta p p e a r s h e was e n r o l l e d i n “ LR E ng l i sh, ” “L D R es E ng l i sh, ” and “D ev R eading, ” w hich he repeat ed seve ral t i m es. 3 A ppel l antA ppendi x ( “A pp. ”) at135- 36. A thi s fi r s thear i ng, L ax cl ai m ed thathe w as u n a b l e t o h o l d a j o b b e c a u s e h e h a d d i f f i c u l tywi th me mo rya n d c o n c e n tr a t i o n . He r eca l l ed thathe w as unabl e t o s erve as a ca s hi erbecaus e he c oul d notcountorgi ve change and thathe w as fi r ed fr om the maj or i tyof hi s j obs forfai l ur e t o keep up w i th or u n d e rs ta n d h is jo b d u tie s . L ax has r ece i ved ment al heal th tr eatm entfors chi zophr eni a, par anoi a, depr es s i on, a n d su b sta n c e a b u se a n d h a s c o n sid e re d su icid e . H e re p o rts d if f icu ltysle e p in g , w ith fl ashbac ks of b ei ng shot and seei ng “peo ple getst abb ed an d stuff. ” Id. at28 5. L ax h as a- 5-

hi s t oryof bac k pr obl ems r el at i ng t o a ca racc i denti n 1992. O n J ul y5, 1994, he w as hos pi t al i zed f

ora guns hotw ound t o the r i ghtl ow erches t . I n Februaryof 2000, L ax w as eval uat ed byD r . Perki ns , a s t at e age ncycons ul t at i ve exa m i ner , w ho concl uded thatL ax had mi l d di ffi cul tyw i th w al ki ng and gett i ng on and off of the exa m i nat i on t abl e and a li m it ed ran g e o f m o ti o n o f th e lum b ar sp ine b ec au se o f h is gu n sh o t w o u n d , b u t th at th ere w a s n o p a ra sp in o u s m u sc le s p a sm s. D r. P e rk in s n o ted th a t L a x ’s “ c o o p e ra tio n [ w a ]s in q u e s tio n d u ri n g th e e x a m in a tio n .” Id . a t 2 1 1 . L ax has been e val uat ed byD r . M cK enna, Ph. D . , a s t at e age ncyps y chol ogi cal cons ul t at i ve exa m i ner , on atl eas ttw o occa s i ons . A ft erm eet i ng w i th L ax i n Februaryof 2 0 0 0 , D r. M cK en n a re p o rt ed that L ax b eli ev ed h e “ c[ o u ldn ’t ] do an ything , ” b u t D r. M cK enna not ed “[ h] e i s notm ent al l yr et ar ded and he appea r s t o be func t i oni ng i n the bor der l i ne r ange, i nt el l ectual l y . ” I d. at206. D r . M cK enna r eport ed thatL ax w as im m a tu re a n d u n re liab le a n d “ se e s h im se lf a s s lo w a n d n e e d s o th e r p e o p le to a ss ist h im to compl et e mostt as ks . ” I d. H e not ed thatL ax’ s abi l i t i es t o bathe, dr es s , and ea tappea r ed t o be atan i ndepende ntl evel , butthatL ax r el i ed on hi s l andl or d t o as s i s thi m w i th m eal pr epar at i on, s hoppi ng, tr ans port at i on, and l aundry . H e di agnos ed Lax w i th adj us tm ent r eac t i on w i th depr es s i on ( r el at ed t o hi s r el eas e fr om pr i s on) and bor der l i ne i nt el l i gence d e p e n d e n t p e rs o n a lity d is o rd e r. L ax w as admi tt ed t o Shaw nee Com m uni tyM ent al H eal th C ent er( “V al eo”) on A pr i l 6, 2000, forpr obl ems w i th poorm emory , s l eepi ng, par anoi a, heada ches , thought s of s ui ci de, and unr es ol ved gr i ef ove rhi s father ’ s death. T he i nt ake c l i ni ci an not ed thatL ax- 6-

“ [ s ]e e m s [ o f

] a v e ra g e in te llig e n c e , b u t r e p o rt s h e h a s [ a ] l e a rn in g d is a b ility.” Id . a t 2 3 4 . H i s di agnos i s s um m aryfr om the vi s i tw as PT SD ( pos t - tr aumat i c s tr es s di s or der ) , m aj or depr es s i on ( r ecurr ent , m oder at e) , ber eave m ent( pr ovi s i onal ) , back pa i n, arthr i t i s i n hand, c o lla p s e d lu n g , f

e e t p ro b le m s , a n d a le a rn in g d is a b ility. L a x re c e iv e d tr e a tm e n t a t V a le o f o r o v e r a y e a r a n d a h a lf f ro m D r. O k a n o , a ps y chi atr i s t . D r . O kano not ed thatL ax’ s “ment al act i vi t i es s uch as under s t andi ng, m em o ry , su stai n ed co n ce n tr ati o n , so cial i n teracti o n an d ad ap tat ion ” w ere “moder at el y/ s ever el yi m pai r ed due t o per s i s t entanxi ety , fea rof i nt erper s onal re la tio n s h ip s , f

la s h b a c k s /n ig h tm a re s a n d im p a ir e d c o n c e n tr a tio n .” Id . a t 4 9 7 . In M ayof 2 00 0, D r. M cK enn a evaluat ed L ax an d ad m i nis t ered an IQ t est . T he tes t rev ea led a v erb al IQ o f 6 0 , a p erf o rm an ce IQ o f 6 2 , an d a f u ll sca le IQ o f 5 7 . H o w ev er, D r . M cK enna r eport ed thatL ax’ s eff orton thi s t es tw as i nadequa t e and thathi s r es pons es to th e tes tin g a p p e a re d u n re liab le. In O c to b e r o f 2 0 0 1 , L a x w a s e v a lu a ted b yD r. B a rn e tt, P h .D ., w h o a d m in is te re d a n IQ te s t o n w h ic h L a x a c h ie v e d a v e rb a l I Q o f 5 8 , a per form ance I Q of 54, and a f ul l s cal e I Q of 52. D r . B arnettdi agnos ed Lax w i th m ent al r et ar dat i on bas ed on hi s t es ts cor es , butnot ed that“M r . L ax gi ves the i m pr es s i on of hi gheri nt el l ectual funct i oni ng i n a fa ce- t o- fac e i nt ervi ew . I s us pecthi s s oci al funct i oni ng m a yb e m o re c o n sis ten t w ith a n in d iv id u a l w h o is f u n c tio n in g in th e m ild lym e n tally r et ar ded r ange, orpos s i bl ythe bor der l i ne r ange of i nt el l ectual funct i oni ng. ” I d. at482. O n Sept ember12, 2003, L ax w as hos pi t al i zed f orw or s eni ng depr es s i on and s ui ci dal i deat i on. A ft era s i x- days t ay , L ax’ s di s char ge di agnos es i ncl uded maj or- 7-

depr es s i ve di s or der( r ecurr ent , s ever e) , pol y s ubs t ance abus e, and chr oni c nec k and l eft s h o u ld e r p a in . H e re c e iv e d n o d ia g n o s is re g a rd in g h is in te lle c tu a l f u n c tio n in g . II. Standar d of

R evi ew “W e r evi ew the C om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on t o det erm i ne w hetherthe fa ctual fi ndi ngs ar e s upport ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the r ecor d and w hetherthe corr ectl egal s ta n d a rd s w e re a p p lie d .” H a c k e tt v . B a rn h a rt , 3 9 5 F .3 d 1 1 6 8 , 1 1 7 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). Subst ant i al evi dence i s “s uch r el evantevi dence as a r eas onabl e mi nd m i ghtacc eptas adequa t e t o s upporta conc l us i on. ” I d. I tr equi r es m or e than a s ci nt i l l a, butl es s than a pr eponder ance . Z ol t ans ki v. F. A . A . , 372 F. 3d 1195, 1200 ( 10th C i r . 2004) . “W e cons i der w hetherthe A L J fol l ow ed the ‘ s peci fi c rul es of l aw thatm us tbe fol l ow ed i n w ei ghi ng part i cul artypes of evi dence i n di s abi l i tycas es , ’ butw e w i l l notr ew ei gh the evi dence or s ubs t i tut e ourj udgm entforthe C om m i s s i oner ’ s . ” H acke tt , 395 F. 3d at1172 ( i nt ernal c ita tio n s o m itte d ). “The poss i bi l i tyof dr aw i ng tw o i ncons i s t entconcl us i ons fr om the evi dence does notpr eventan admi ni s tr at i ve age ncy ’ s fi ndi ngs fr om bei ng s upport ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . ” Zol t anks i , 372 F. 3d at1200. W e maynot“di s pl ace the age nc[y ’ s ] choi ce betw een tw o fai r l yconfl i ct i ng vi ew s , even though the courtw oul d j us t i fi abl yhave made a d if f e re n t c h o ic e h a d th e m a tte r b e e n b e f o re it d e n o v o .” Id . F i ve- Step D is abi l i t

y D eterm i nat i on T he Soci al Secur i tyA ctdefi nes di s abi l i tyas the “i nabi l i tyt o engage i n any- 8-

s ubs t ant i al gai nful act i vi tybyr eas on of anym edi cal l ydet erm i nabl e phy s i cal orm ent al i m pai rm entw hi ch ca n be expe ct ed t o r es ul ti n death orw hi ch has l as t ed orcan be expec t ed t o l as tfora cont i nuous per i od of notl es s than 12 mont hs . . . . ” 42 U . S. C . §§ 4 2 3 (d)(1 )(A ), 1 3 8 2 c(a )(3)(A ) (20 0 4 ); W il li am s v . B o w en , 8 4 4 F . 2 d 7 4 8 , 7 5 0 (10 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). T h is tw e lv e -m o n th d u ra tio n re q u ire m e n t ap p lies to th e c laim a n t’s in a b ili tyto e n g a g e in a n ys u b s ta n tia l g a in f u l a c tiv ity, a n d n o t ju s t h is u n d e rl y in g im p a irm e n t. B a rn h a rtv . W a lto n , 5 3 5 U .S . 2 1 2 , 2 1 8 -1 9 (2 0 0 2 ). “T he C om m i ssi on er i s r equ i red t o fo l l ow a fi ve-st ep sequ enti al evaluat i on process t o det erm i ne w hethera cl ai m anti s di s abl ed. ” H acke tt , 395 F. 3d at1171. “The cl ai m ant bear s the bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of di s abi l i tyats t eps one thr ough four . ” Id . S tep o n e re q u ire s th e c laim a n t to d e m o n stra te “ th a t h e is n o t p re se n tlye n g a g e d in su b stan ti al ga inf

u l acti v ity . ” G rog an v . B arn h art, 3 9 9 F . 3 d 1 2 5 7 , 1 2 6 1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). A ts t ep tw o, the cl ai m antm us ts how “thathe has a medi cal l ys ever e i m pai rm entor combi nat i on of i m pai rm ent s . ” I d. A ts t ep thr ee, i f a c l ai m antcan s how thatthe i m pai rm enti s equi val entt o a l i s t ed i m pai rm ent , he i s pr es um ed t o be di s abl ed and ent i t l ed t o benef

i t s . W i l l i ams, 844 F. 2d at751. I f a c l ai m antcannotm eeta l i s t i ng ats t ep thr ee, he cont i nues t o s t ep four , w hi ch r equi r es the cl ai m antt o s how “thatthe i m pai rm ent orcombi nat i on of i m pai rm ent s pr event s hi m fr om per form i ng hi s pas tw ork. ” G r ogan, 3 9 9 F .3 d a t 1 2 6 1 . “I f the cl ai m ants ucce s s ful l ym eet s thi s bur den, the bur den of pr oof s hi ft s t o the C om m i s s i onerats t ep fi ve t o s how thatthe cl ai m antr et ai ns s uffi ci entR FC [r es i dual- 9-

funct i onal capa ci ty ] t o per form w ork i n the nat i onal economy , gi ven herage, educa t i on, and w ork exper i ence . ” H acke tt , 395 F. 3d at1171. “I f a de t erm i nat i on can be m ade a t a n yo f th e ste p s th a t a c laim a n t is o r is n o t d isa b led , ev a lu a tio n u n d e r a su b se q u e n t ste p is n o t n e c e s s a ry.” W illia m s , 8 4 4 F .2 d a t 7 5 0 . Step Thr ee, Lis t i ng 12. 05( B ) f orMentalR etardat i on A t ste p th re e , the d e ter m in a tio n is m a d e “ w h e th e r th e im p a irm e n t is e q u iv a len t to on e of a nu m ber of li st ed im pairm ents that the [C om m i ssi on er] ackn ow l edg es ar e so s e v e r e a s t o p r e c l u d e s u b s t a n t i a l g a i n f u l a c t i v i ty . ” W i l l i a ms , 8 4 4 F . 2 d a t7 5 1 ; 2 0 C. F . R. §§ 416. 920( d) , 404. 1520a( d) . “I f the i m pai rm enti s l i s t ed and thus concl us i vel ypr es um ed t o be di s abl i ng, the cl ai m anti s ent i t l ed t o benef i t s . ” W i l l i ams, 844 F. 2d at751. T o s how th a t a n im p a irm e n t o r c o m b in a tio n o f im p a irm e n ts m e e ts th e re q u ir e m e n ts o f a lis tin g , a c laim a n t m u st p ro v id e sp e c if ic m e d ica l f

in d in g s th a t su p p o rt e a c h o f th e v a rio u s re q u isite c ri te ri a f o r t h e im p a irm e n t. S e e 2 0 C .F .R . § § 4 0 4 .1 5 2 5 , 4 1 6 .9 2 5 (2 0 0 6 ). I n thi s appea l , L ax ar gues thatthe A L J err ed i n det erm i ni ng thathe di d notm eet the li st i ng for 12 . 05 (B ). L i st i ng 12 . 05 , M ental R et ardat i on , st at es: [m ] ent al r et ar dat i on r efe r s t o s i gni fi cant l ys ubaver age ge ner al i nt el l ectual funct i oni ng w i th defi ci t s i n adapt i ve func t i oni ng i ni t i al l ym ani fes t ed dur i ng the d e v e lo p m e n tal p e rio d ; i.e . , the evi dence demonstr at es ors upport s ons etof the im p airm en t bef

o re a g e 2 2 . 2 0 C . F . R . , p t. 4 0 4 , su b p t. P , A p p . 1 , § 1 2 . 0 5 (20 0 6 ). T h is i s w h at i s co m m o n lyref erred to as the “ ca p su le de fin it ion ” f o r th is l ist ing . In addi t i on t o m eet i ng thi s caps ul e def i ni t i on, a cl ai m antm us tal s o m eetone of the four severi typrong s for m ental ret ardat i on as l i st ed in the regu l at i on s. T he li st i ng st at es,- 10-

[ t ] h e r e q u i r e d l e v e l o f

s e v e r i tyf

o rth i s d i s o r d e ri s me twh e n th e r e q u i r e me n t s i n A, B , C , o r D a re s a tis f

ie d . (A ) . . . ( B ) A val i d verbal , per form ance , orful l s cal e I Q of 59 orl es s ; or ( C ) A val i d verbal , per form ance , orful l s cal e I Q of 60 thr ough 70 and a phy s i cal orotherm ent al i m pai rm enti m pos i ng an addi t i onal and s i gni fi cantw ork- r el at ed li m it ati o n o f f

u n cti o n ; or (D ) . . . S ee 2 0 C . F . R . , p t. 4 0 4 , su b p t. P , A p p . 1 , § 1 2 . 0 5 (A )-( D ) (20 0 6 ). T he A L J det erm i ned thatL ax fa i l ed t o s at i s fyboth the caps ul e def i ni t i on forthe l i s t i ng and s ever i typr ong ( B ) of the l i s t i ng. I n hi s appea l , L ax ar gues thathe meet s the caps ul e def

i ni t i on forthe l i s t i ng, as w el l as the cr i t er i a fors ever i typr ong ( B ) . I n the al t ernat i ve, L ax ar gues thatthe A L J err ed i n fai l i ng t o cons i derw hetherhe metthe c r i t e r i a f o rs e v e r i typ r o n g ( C) . W e wi l l f i r s te x a mi n e wh e th e rLa x me ts e v e r i typ r o n g ( B) of the l i s t i ng. Se v e r i t y Pr o n go

f Lis t i n g1 2 . 0 5 (

B) L a x a rg u e s th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in f in d in g th a t h e d idn o t m e e t se v e rity pr ong ( B ) of the l i s t i ng, w hi ch r equi r es a “va l i d verbal , per form ance , orful l s cal e I Q of 5 9 o r l ess.” 2 0 C . F . R . p t. 4 0 4 , su b p t. P , A p p . 1 , § 1 2 . 0 5 (B ) (20 0 6 ). “In ca ses w h ere m o re th a n o n e IQ is c u sto m a rilyd e riv e d f ro m th e tes t ad m in iste re d , e.g ., w h e re v e rb a l, per form ance , and ful l s cal e I Q s ar e pr ovi ded i n the W echs l ers er i es , w e us e the l ow es tof thes e i n conj unct i on w i th 12. 05. ” See 20 C. F. R . , pt . 404, s ubpt . P, A pp. 1, § 12. 00D ( 6) ( c) (20 0 6 ).T her e w as al s o a thi r d t es t i ng of Lax’ s I Q per form ed bythe K ans as D epartm ent 4 o f C o rr e c tio n s o n S e p te m b e r 1 9 , 1 9 9 5 . T h is te s t e s ta b lis h e d a v e rb a l I Q o f 7 1 , a per form ance I Q of 88, and a f ul l s cal e I Q of 77. H ow ever , thi s documentw as nots i gned and does notl i s tw hats peci fi c i nt el l i gence t es tw as admi ni s t er ed. B ecaus e of thi s , L ax obj ect ed t o thi s r eportand the A L J s us t ai ned hi s obj ect i on. T her efor e, w e w i l l not c o n s id e r t h is re p o rt .

- 11- L a x c o n ten d s th a t th e re a re tw o tes t re su lts in th e re c o rd a n d b o th e sta b lish a f u ll sc a le I Q b e lo w 5 9 . In M a yo f 2 0 0 0 , D r. M c K e n n a a d m in iste re d th e W e c h sle r A d u lt 4 In te llig e n c e S c a le II I ( “ W A IS -I II ” ) I Q te s t to L a x , w h o re c e iv e d a v e rb a l I Q s c o re o f 6 0 , a p erf o rm an ce IQ sco re o f 6 2 , an d a f u ll sca le IQ sco re o f 5 7 . In O ctob er o f 2 0 0 1 , D r. B a rn e tt a d m in is te re d th is s a m e te s t to L a x , w h o a c h ie v e d a v e rb a l I Q o f 5 8 , a per form ance I Q of 54, and a f ul l s cal e I Q of 52. A l though thes e s cor es fal l bel ow the n u m e ric re q u ire m e n t o f th e listin g , the A L J d e ter m in e d th a t “[ w ]h e n th e e n tire r e c o rd is re v ie w e d th e lo w IQ s c o re s c a n n o t b e c o n s id e re d (s ic ) a s v a lid .” A p p . a t 3 2 5 . L ax ar gues thatthe A L J bas ed thi s concl us i on on hi s ow n opi ni ons and obs ervat i ons , r atherthan on val i d obj ect i ve evi dence i n the r ecor d. T he C om m i s s i oner r es ponds thatm aki ng fac tual det erm i nat i ons on the val i di tyof I Q s cor es i s w i thi n the p rov ince o f a n A L J an d the re co rd c o n tai n s su b stan ti al ev iden ce to su p p o rtthe A L J’s fi ndi ng thatL ax’ s I Q s cor es ar e notan ac cur at e meas ur ementof hi s i nt el l ectual f u n c tio n in g . W e a g re e . T he A L J di s cus s ed Lax’ s I Q s cor es i n hi s anal y s i s of s t ep tw o and s t ep thr ee of the f iv e -ste p d isa b ili tyd e ter m in a tio n . In h is a n a ly sis o f ste p tw o , the A L J n o ted th a t in Februaryof 2000, D r . M cK enna di agnos ed Lax w i th “bor der l i ne i nt el l i gence w i th aI n hi s anal y s i s ats t ep thr ee, the A L J m ade s peci fi c fi ndi ngs i n di r ects upportof 5 his con cl usi on that Lax did not m eetthe cap sul e def i nit i on for L i st i ng 12 . 05 , bu the als o re f e re n c e d th e se f

in d in g s in su p p o rt o f

h is c o n c lu sio n th a t L a x ’s I Q sc o re s w e re in v a lid and ther efor e Lax di d notm eets ever i typr ong ( B ) of the l i s t i ng.

- 12- depende ntper s onal i tydi s or der . ” A pp. at321. I n r egar ds t o the I Q t es tD r . M cK enna admi ni s t er ed i n M ayof 2000, the A L J found thatD r . M cK enna “ cl ear l yr enounc[ ed] the s cor es r eport ed” be caus e Lax’ s “ef fort[w ] as m i ni m al and i nadequa t e” a nd “hi s r es pons es ap p ea red ‘un reli ab le. ’” Id . at 32 2 . T h e A L J also co m m en ted o n the re su lt s o f L ax ’s IQ t es tadmi ni s t er ed byD r . B arnettand s t at ed, [t]he claim an t w as e x am ined b yR o b ert B arn ett , P h . D . o n O ctob er 1 1 , 2 0 0 1 . D r. B arn ettd id n o t no ti ce an yu n u su al be h av ior. D r. B arn ettfo u n d the c lai m an t’ s v erb al IQ to b e 5 8 , h is pe rfo rm an ce IQ w as 5 4 , an d h is fu ll sca le IQ w as 5 2 . D r. B arnettexpr es s ed hi s bel i ef thatthe cl ai m antw as actual l yfunct i oni ng i n a hi gher ra n g e . Id . a t 3 2 3 . I n hi s anal y s i s ats t ep thr ee, the A L J det erm i ned thatL ax’ s m edi cal evi dence 5 d e m o n stra ted th a t h e su f f e rs f ro m “ d e p re ss io n , red u c e d in telle c tu a l f u n c tio n in g , ina b ili ty t o r ead a nd i s ( s i c) s t atus pos tguns hotw ound i n thor aci c ar ea of back w i th r es ul t i ng pai n. ” I d. T he A L J concl uded thatthes e ar e s ever e i m pai rm ent s w i thi n the meani ng of th e re g u latio n s, b u t th a t th e se im p a irm e n ts w e re n o t se v e re e n o u g h to m e e t o r m e d ica lly equal a l i s t i ng, ei thers i ngl yori n combi nat i on. Speci fi cal l y , i n r egar ds t o L i s t i ng 12. 05( B ) , the A L J not ed di s par i t i es betw een Lax’ s I Q s cor es and otherevi dence i n the r ecor d and comm ent ed that [t ] he onl yconcl us i on thatcan be r eac hed i s thatthe cl ai m anti s ei thernot per form i ng cons i s t ent l yon the t es t s orhe i s del i ber at el yatt empt i ng t o have l ow s cor es . W hen the ent i r e r ecor d i s r evi ew ed the l ow I Q s cor es cannotbecons i der ed- 13-

( s i c) as val i d. N o exami nerhas vouched f orthe val i di tyof the t es t s , and the l ar ge var i at i ons i n r es ul t s r ai s e l egi t i m at e ques t i ons conce rni ng thei rval i di ty . T he u n d ersign ed w il l no t assu m e the test s to b e v ali d rep rese n tat ion s o f th e c lai m an t’ s i nt el l i gence l evel s , and w i l l notr el yon them t o es t abl i s h a l i s t i ng l evel m ent al im p a irm e n t. I d . a t 3 2 4 -2 5 . Th e ALJ a l s o d e t e rmi n e d th a tLa x ’ s c r e d i b i l i tywa s a ti s s u e a n d c o n c l u d e d th a th i s c l a i ms of a ment al i m pai rm ents ever e enough t o m eetL i s t i ng 12. 05( B ) w er e nots upport ed by o b je c tiv e e v id e n c e . W e conc l ude thati tw as pr operforthe A L J t o cons i derotherevi dence i n the r ecor d w hen det erm i ni ng w hetherL ax’ s I Q s cor es w er e val i d and thatthe r ecor d cont ai ns su b sta n tial e v id e n c e to su p p o rt a f in d in g th a t L a x ’s I Q sc o re s w e re n o t an a c c u ra te r efl ect i on of hi s i nt el l ectual capabi l i t i es . O urdeci s i on i s cons i s t entw i th the r eas oni ng of otherci r cui t s on thi s i s s ue. See M arkl e v. B arnhart , 324 F. 3d 182, 186 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( not i ng thatC om m i s s i oneri s notr equi r ed t o acc epta cl ai m ant ’ s I Q s cor es and mayr ej ect sco res tha t are inc o n sist en t w ith the re co rd); C lark v . A p fe l, 1 4 1 F . 3 d 1 2 5 3 , 1 2 5 5 (8th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ( s a me ) ; M u s e v . Su l l i v a n , 9 2 5 F. 2 d 7 8 5 , 7 9 0 ( 5 th Ci r . 1 9 9 1 ) ( n o t i n g th a ta n ALJ m aym ake f

actual det erm i nat i ons on the val i di tyof I Q s cor es ) ; Popp v. H eckl er , 779 F. 2d 1497, 1499 ( 11th C i r . 1986) ( C om m i s s i oneri s notr equi r ed t o m ake f i ndi ng of m ent al re ta rd a tio n b a s e d o n th e re s u lts o f a n IQ te s t a lo n e ). Dr . M c Ke n n a e x p l i c i t l yq u e s t i o n e d th e v a l i d i tyo f L a x ’ s I Q s c o r e s . He comm ent ed i n a s ect i on ent i t l ed “M ent al St atus E xami nat i on” that“[Lax’ s ] eff ortw as m i ni m al , and he w oul d geteas yi t ems w r ong and more di ffi cul ty( s i c) i t ems corr ect . ” A pp. at236. U ndera s ect i on ent i t l ed “Cre di bi l i ty , ” D r . M cK enna not ed,- 14-

[Lax’ s ] eff

ortw as i nadequa t e. H i s r es pons es w er e vague butcoher ent . T he in f o rm a tio n p ro v id e d b y[ L a x ] a n d h is re s p o n s e s to th e te s tin g a p p e a re d u n re lia b le . H i s s cor es appea rt o be an unde res t i m at i on of hi s cogni t i ve abi l i t i es . O n the m emoryt es t s , he r eca l l ed i t ems thatw er e i n the mi ddl e of the t es tand coul d not r emem berpr i m aryi t ems orr ece ncyi t ems. H e w oul d m i s s eas yi t ems and ge t m o re d ifficu ltit em s co rrect. H is eff o rtw as li m it ed . Id. at 23 7 (em p h asis ad d ed ). H e d iag n o se d L a x w ith “ [ m ]ildm e n tal re tar d a tio n , b u t h is c o g n iti v e a b ili ties re f lec t h is d e p e n d e n t p e rs o n a lity f e a tu re s .” Id . a t 2 3 8 . L ax ad m it s tha t D r. M cK en n a n o ted h is l im it ed ef fo rt , b u t argu es th at D r. M c K e n n a n e v e r s ta te d th a t L a x w a s p u rp o s e f u lly tryin g to s a b o ta g e h is te s tin g re s u lts . I ns t ead, he as s ert s thatD r . M cK enna ul t i m at el ydi agnos ed hi m w i th m i l d m ent al re tar d a tio n a n d c o n c lu d e d th a t L a x ’s “ c o g n iti v e a b ili ties re f lec t h is d e p e n d e n t p e rso n a lity fea tur es . ” I d. H e ar gues thatthe A L J ’ s det erm i nat i on thathi s t es t i ng w as unr el i abl e due to d e lib e ra te a tte m p ts to s a b o ta g e h is te s t r e s u lts is n o t s u p p o rt e d b yth e re c o rd . W e dis agree. D r. M cK enn a’s com m ents exp l i ci t l yqu est i on L ax’s efforton the tes t a n d th e u lti m a te v a lid ityo f th e re su lts. T h e se c o m m e n ts p ro v id e su b sta n tial e v id e n c e to s u p p o rtth e A L J ’s d e te rm in a tio n th a t L a x ’s IQ s c o re s w e re n o t r e lia b le . S e e 2 0 C .F .R ., pt . 404, s ubpt . P, A pp. 1, § 12. 00D ( 6) ( 2006) ( s t at i ng that“s i nce the r es ul t s of i nt el l i gence t est s ar e on l ypartof the ov eral l asses sm ent, the n arr at i ve repo rtthat accom pan i es the tes t re su lts sh o u ld c o m m e n t o n w h e th e r th e IQ sc o re s a re c o n sid e re d v a lida n d c o n sis ten t w ith th e d e v e lo p m e n ta l h is to ry a n d th e d e g re e o f f u n c tio n a l lim ita tio n ” ). D r . B arnettal s o comm ent ed upon di s par i t i es betw een Lax’ s obs erved i nt el l ectual f u n c t i o n i n g a n d h i s t e s ts c o r e s . De s p i t e d i a g n o s i n g L a x wi th “ M e n t a l Re t a r d a t i o n , NOS- 15-

[nototherw i s e s peci fi ed] , C ons i derM oder at e M ent al R et ar dat i on, ” he c oncl uded under “D i agnos t i c I m pr es s i ons ” that“M r . L ax gi ves the i m pr es s i on of hi gheri nt el l ectual fu n cti o n ing in a f

ac e-to-f ac e interv iew . I sus p ec t his soc ial fu n cti o n ing m ayb e m o re cons i s t entw i th an i ndi vi dual w ho i s funct i oni ng i n the mi l dl ym ent al l yr et ar ded r ange, or p o s s ib ly b o rd e rl in e ra n g e o f in te lle c tu a l f

u n c tio n in g .” Id . a t 4 8 1 -8 2 . Al th o u g h Dr . Ba rn e ttn o t e d th a t“ [ La x ] ma d e a g o o d e f f o rtt o r e s p o n d t o my q u e stio n s, a n d th e v a lid ityo f h is re sp o n se s a p p e a rs s a tisf a c to ry ,” h e re p o rte d th is obs ervat i on underthe gene r al “B ehavi or al O bs ervat i ons ” hea di ng of hi s r eport . I d. at 4 8 1 . Itis un clea r fro m D r. B arn ett ’s na rrati v e w h ethe r th is co m m en t r ef lects D r. B arnett ’ s vi ew s on the val i di tyof Lax’ s ans w er s t o the W A I S- I I I t es tques t i ons ori f he w as m ere lyco m m en ti n g o n L ax ’s ov era ll d em ea n o r du ri n g the e x am ination an d L ax ’s a n sw e rs to th e in ter v iew e r’s g e n e ra l q u e stio n in g . T h e A L J m a yh a v e in terp re ted th is s ta te m e n t to re f

e r o n ly to L a x ’s o v e ra ll d e m e a n o r a n d g e n e ra l r e s p o n s e s d u ri n g th e e x a m . G iv e n o u r sta n d a rd o f

re v iew , this in terp re tatio n w a s re a so n a b le. “ T h e su b sta n tiale v id e n c e sta n d a rd d o e s n o t allo w u s to d isp lac e th e a g e n c ies ’ c h o ice b e tw e e n tw o f a irly confl i ct i ng vi ew s , even though the courtw oul d j us t i fi abl yhave made a di ffe r entchoi ce had the mat t erbeen be for e i tde novo. ” C us t erC ountyA ct i on A s s ’ n v. G arvey , 256 F. 3d 1 0 2 4 , 1 0 3 0 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). I n a d d i t i o n t o th e n a rr a t i v e a c c o mpa n y i n g e a c h o f La x ’ s t e s tr e s u l t s , th e ALJ d e ter m in e d th a t o th e r e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd in v a lid a ted L a x ’s I Q sc o re s b e c a u se : 1 ) b o th cl i ni ci ans w ho t es t ed Lax st at ed thathe pr es ent s and func t i ons i n the mannerexpec t edT hi s i nt ake f orm w as notcompl et ed byD r . O kano, butbyanothercl i ni ci an, 6 w h o s e p re c is e o c c u p a tio n is u n k n o w n .

- 16- f ro m a p e rso n w ith b o rd e rlin e in telle c tu a l f u n c tio n in g ; (2 ) n o p ro f

e ss io n a l, i n c lu d in g h is tre a tin g p h y sic ian , d e sc rib e d L a x ’s b e h a v io r a s in d ica tiv e o f m e n tal re tar d a tio n ; (3 ) h is educa t i onal hi s t oryi ndi cat es a l earni ng di s abi l i ty , r atherthan ment al r et ar dat i on; ( 4) L ax’ s hi s t or i c capabi l i t i es ar e notcons i s t entw i th an i ndi vi dual w ho i s m ent al l yr et ar ded; ( 5) L ax l acke d cr edi bi l i ty ; and ( 6) the l ar ge var i at i ons i n t es tr es ul t s r ai s e ques t i ons r egar di ng thei rval i di ty . T her e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the r ecor d t o s upportal l butthe l as tfi ndi ng. B o th D r. M c K e n n a a n d D r. B a rn e tt n o ted th a t L a x a p p e a rs to f u n c tio n a t a bor der l i ne t o m i l dl ym ent al l yr et ar ded r ange. I n fac t , the r ecor d cont ai ns no opi ni on fr om an ym ed ical pro fe ssion al th at L ax p rese n ts as m en tal lyretarde d . D r. O k an o , L ax ’s tr eat i ng phy s i ci an atV al eo, neverm ent i oned thatL ax w as m ent al l yr et ar ded. I ns t ead, L ax’ s i nt ake f

orm fr om V al eo s t at es thatL ax “[ s ] eems [of ] aver age i nt el l i gence , buthe r eport s he has [a] l earni ng di s abi l i ty . ” I d. at549- 551. I n overfi ftypages of r ecor ds 6 r ecount i ng L ax’ s tr eatm entatV al eo and de s cr i bi ng hi s r eport ed and obs erved f u n c tio n in g , th e re is n e v e r a n ym e n tio n th a t L a x h a s a s ig n if ic a n t in te lle c tu a l im p a irm e n t. T he A L J ’ s fi ndi ng thatL ax’ s educa t i onal hi s t oryi s i ndi cat i ve of as tudentw i th a le a rn in g d is a b ility, ra th e r t h a n m e n ta l r e ta rd a tio n , is s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . L ax’ s s chool r ecor ds r evea l thatthe maj or i tyof hi s cl as s es w er e mai ns tr eam and thatL ax r ece i ved “D s ” i n hi s fr es hm en/ s ophom or e phy s i cal educa t i on cl as s es and an “ F” i n w ei ght- 17-

tra in in g , ind ica tin g th a t L a x ’s p o o r p e rf o rm a n c e in sc h o o l w a s n o t li m ited to h is a c a d e m ic cour s ew ork. Fi nal l y , the r ecor d i ndi cat es thatL ax neve rcons i der ed hi m s el f t o be m ent al l yr et ar ded unt i l s ever al y ear s i nt o the SSD pr oces s . Pr i ort o 2002, L ax c o n s is te n tly re f

e rr e d to h im s e lf

a s h a v in g a le a rn in g d is a b ility. T he A L J ’ s fi ndi ng thatL ax’ s hi s t or i c capabi l i t i es w er e notcons i s t entw i th m ent al re tar d a tio n a n d th a t L a x ’s c re d ib ili tyw a s a t issu e b e c a u se L a x w a s in c o n sis ten t in rep o rt ing w h at he w as a b le an d u n ab le t o d o is sup p o rt ed b ysu b stan ti al ev iden ce . T h ere is e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd th a t L a x p ro v id e d c o n tra d icto ryin f o rm a tio n re g a rd in g h is a b ili ty to d riv e a c a r a n d re a d . T h is e v id e n c e su p p o rts th e A L J’s f in d in g th a t L a x ’s c re d ib ili ty w a s in q u e stio n , es p e c iallyin lig h t o f th e sp e c ial d e f

e re n c e g iv e n to a n A L J’s c re d ib ili ty f in d in g s. S e e Z o ltan sk i, 37 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 0 1 (n o tin g th a t “[ a n a d m in istra tiv e ] la w ju d g e is in the bes tpos i t i on t o obs erve the demeanorof w i tnes s es ata hea r i ng, and, as a r es ul t , the [ A L J ’s ] c re d ib ility f

in d in g s d e s e rv e s p e c ia l d e f e re n c e ” ). F i nall y , the A L J det erm i ned that “l arge vari at i on s i n [the t est ] r esul t s r ai se l egi t i m at e ques t i ons conce rni ng thei rval i di ty . ” I d. at325. T her e i s no evi dence i n the rec o rd th at th ere w as a “larg e v ariati o n ” in L ax ’s IQ testsco res b ec au se n eith er D r. M c K e n n a n o r D r. B a rn e tt co m m e n ted o n a n yv a ria tio n in th e tes t re su lts. T h is f in d in g is nots upport ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the r ecor d and w as l egal l yfl aw ed bec aus e an A LJ c a nn ots ub s t i tut e he rl a yop i ni on fo rtha tof a medi c a l pr of

e s s i on a l . Si s c o v . U . S. D e p ’to f H e a lth & H u m a n S e rv s ., 1 0 F .3 d 7 3 9 , 7 4 4 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). D esp it e this erro r, there is sub stan ti al ev iden ce in the rec o rd a s a w h o le t o su p p o rt- 18-

the A L J ’ s det erm i nat i on thatL ax di d notpr ovi de a va l i d I Q s cor e bel ow 59 as r equi r ed by s ever i typr ong ( B ) of the l i s t i ng. D r . M cK enna e xpl i ci t l yques t i oned Lax’ s eff orton the I Q t es tand the val i di tyof hi s r es ul t i ng s cor es and D r . B arnettnot ed thatL ax pr es ent ed as i f he pos s es s ed hi gheri nt el l ectual funct i oni ng than hi s s cor es i ndi cat ed. T hi s evi dence su p p o rts th e A L J’s f

in d in g th a t L a x ’s I Q sc o re s w e re n o t a v a lidre f lec tio n o f

h is intell ec tual fu n cti o n ing . “A s lon g as su b stan ti al ev iden ce su p p o rt s the A L J’s det erm i nat i on, the [Com m i s s i oner ’ s ] deci s i on s t ands . ” H ami l t on v. Sec’ yof H eal th & H u m a n S e rv s ., 9 6 1 F .2 d 1 4 9 5 , 1 5 0 0 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). I n the al t ernat i ve, L ax ar gues thatthe A L J err ed i n fai l i ng t o cons i derw hetherhe me tth e r e q u i r e me n to f

L i s t i n g 1 2 . 0 5 ( C) . Be c a u s e L a x f a i l s t o d e v e l o p th i s a r g u me n t , we w ill n o t c o n s id e r i t. G ro s s v . B u rg g ra f C o n s tr . C o ., 5 3 F .3 d 1 5 3 1 , 1 5 4 7 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). E ven i f w e w ere t o co nsi der i t , this argum ent w ou l d u l t i m at el yfai l becau se 12.05(C ) al so re q u ir e s a v a lid IQ s c o re a n d w e h a v e a lr e a d yd e te rm in e d th a t L a x ’s IQ s c o re s a re in v a lid . B ecaus e w e have concl uded thatL ax fa i l ed t o m eetone of the s ever i typr ongs of the l i s t i ng, w e nee d notcons i derw hetherhe metthe caps ul e def i ni t i on. III . W e A FFIRM the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or deruphol di ng the C om m i s s i oner ’ s deni al of b e n e f its .