United States Court of Appeals

 For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-2533

___________________________

Felecia Channell

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

 ____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro

 ____________

 Submitted: April 18, 2014

 Filed: June 25, 2014

[Published]

 ____________

 

Before LOKEN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and SIPPEL, District Judge. 

1

____________

PER CURIAM

The Honorable Rodney Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Missouri, sitting by designation.
Felecia Channell appeals the district court’s order affirming the denial of her

application for supplemental security income benefits (SSI). Channel alleged

disability since January 2010 based on a mental impairment. After a June 2011

hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Channell’s application for SSI

benefits. The Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ’s decision, and the district

court affirmed. Upon de novo review, see McDade v. Astrue, 720 F.3d 994, 997-998

(8th Cir. 2013) we reverse and remand.

Channell was born in 1986 and was 24 years old at the time of the ALJ’s

decision. She completed the eleventh grade getting all As. However she was taking

special education classes in all substantive education courses, including English,

math, biology, and history. Channell has never held a job. She can read “little”

words and write but cannot be sure she gets the correct change when she buys

something at a store. She lives in a house with her four children ages 5, 4, 2, and 1. 

She receives food stamps and relies on financial support from her family. With

regular assistance from her family, Channell is able to care for her children and does

her own housework. When school is in session her kids are placed in daycare. If

Channell goes shopping she is able to determine what groceries she needs and buys

themherself. She got her driver’s license (after four attempts at the written test) when

she was 23 years old but does not own a car and does not drive often.

Channell has no physical impairments. Her disability claim is based on her

mental limitations. In 1999, when Channell was 13 years old, she was given an IQ

test, (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - III) which revealed a verbal IQ score

of 58, a performance IQ score of 63, and a full scale IQ score of 56. In January 2006,

when Channell was 19 or 20 years old, she was given a psychological evaluation by 

a psychologist, Dr. George DeRoeck. Dr. DeRoeck noted that Channell “was very

slow to respond, gave vague responses, exhibited a flat effect and, in general,

appeared sluggish.” He observed that her speech was clear and effective, though

-2-
“somewhat impoverished,” and that she demonstrated an ability to follow simple

instructions adequately.

Dr. DeRoeck administered an IQ test (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - III)

which revealed a verbal IQ score of 67, a performance IQ score of 59, and a full scale

IQ score of 61. Dr. DeRoeck noted that these scores were commensurate with the

mildly deficient range. He also opined that, although Channell did not exhibit signs

of exaggeration or malingering, she “exhibited relatively poor motivation and

confidence in her ability, therefore putting forth little effort in the items at hand” and

that she had a “tendency to give up very easily and would easily state ‘don’t know.’”

Dr. DeRoeck stated that these “motivational factors should be kept in mind in

reviewing her test results.” Dr. DeRoeck concluded that Channell’s “overall

intellectual functioning is commensurate with the mildly deficient range.” 

On February 2, 2010, Dr. Winston Brown, M.D., a state agency medical

consultant, completed a mental residual functional capacity assessment based on his

review ofChannell’s medicalrecords. Dr. Brown opined thatChannell would be able

to perform work where interpersonal contact would be incidental to work performed;

complexity of tasks would be learned and performed by rote; few variables and little

judgment would exist; and supervision required would be simple, direct, and

concrete.

On January 19, 2010 Channellfiled an application for SSI. The Agency denied

Channell’s claim. A hearing before an ALJ was held on June 15, 2011. Channell

tesified about her mental capacity issues and about her daily activities. On August

24, 2011, the ALJ issued his decision denying benefits. The ALJ found that

Channell’s reduced mental function did not meet or equal a listed impairment on the

Social Security Administration’s list of impairments presumed severe enough to

preclude any gainful work. 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, App. 1. The ALJ’s

conclusion was based on discrediting Channell’s 2006 performance IQ score of 59. 

-3-
This score would normally deem Channell to be disabled and entitled to benefits

pursuant to 20 CFR Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. Section 12.05B (a claimant is disabled

when she has a “valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 59 or less”). However,

an ALJ may disregard testscoresthat are inconsistent with a plaintiff’s demonstrative

activities and abilities asreflected in the record. See Clay v. Barnhart, 417 F.3d 922,

929 (8th Cir. 2005)(“the Commissioner need not rely exclusively on IQ scores, and

that the Commissioner may disregard test scores that are inconsistent with an

applicant’s demonstrated activities and abilities as reflected in the record as a

whole.”). The ALJ found that Channell’s daily activities did not indicate she was

completely unable to work. The ALJ determined that Channel had no exertional

limitations and thatshe had a residual functional capacity to perform unskilled work. 

Based on a vocational expert’s testimony, the ALJ found that Channell could perform

jobs as a poultry hanger, a machine feeder, or a maid / housekeeper.

 

In seeking reversal, Channell asks to have this case remanded for an award of

benefits or, alternatively, for proper consideration of her intellectual disability. Our

review of the record reveals that the record is incomplete. It is the ALJ’s

responsibility “to develop the record fairly and fully, independent of the claimant’s

burden to press his case.” Snead v. Barnhart, 360 F.3d 834, 838 (8th Cir. 2004). In

his decision denying Channell benefits, the ALJ stated that he scheduled Channell to

undergo further testing of her intellectual function on August 11, 2011, to be

followed by a Computerized Assessment of Response Bias(CARB), to assess her for

malingering or exaggeration. The ALJ was properly attempting to fully develop the

record by obtaining a current assessment of Channell’s mental functioning. The ALJ

states in his decision that Channell failed to attend her scheduled consultive

evaluation. He uses Channell’s failure to comply as an additional reason to deny

Channell benefits. However, aside from the ALJ’s statement in his decision, the

record does not contain any evidence that Channel was scheduled for further testing. 

-4-
The issue of further testing is not mentioned in the hearing transcript. There

are no letters or other documents in the record which reflect that Channel was

informed she was scheduled for further testing. Based on the record, we are left to

speculate whether Channell or her counsel were notified of the testing. Given the

nature of Channell’s claimed disability, a mental impairment of listing-level severity,

the record should indicate how and when Channell and her counsel were notified. 

We should not be required to speculate as to the adequacy of notice of additional

testing or whether there was another reason beyond the claimant’s control that

prevented her attendance at the scheduled testing. Based on the record before us, we

cannot conclude that it has been fully developed.

As a result, we reverse and remand this matter for further development of the

record on Channell’s mental impairments. The ALJ shall reschedule Channell for an

IQ test and other testing he deems appropriate before ruling on Channell’s claim for

benefits. The record shall contain documentation of the notice regarding the testing

given to Channell and her counsel.

______________________________

-5-