[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-10318

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-00239-GRJ

TRACY S. SMITH, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(September 11, 2013)

Before HULL, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-10318 Date Filed: 09/11/2013 Page: 1 of 8 
2

Tracy S. Smith appeals the magistrate judge’s order affirming the 

Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of her applications for disability 

insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI), pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). Smith originally alleged a disability onset date 

of September 2, 2007, following a stroke, which allegedly caused her to experience 

difficulty walking, trouble remembering, headaches, and hand cramps. On appeal,

she argues that the ALJ erred in finding that (1) she was not mentally retarded at 

step two of the sequential evaluation process, and (2) she did not meet Listing 

12.05(C) for mental retardation at step three of the sequential evaluation process. 

Specifically, Smith asserts that the ALJ misconstrued her IQ test—on which she 

received a score of 59—to conclude that her IQ was above 70. After a thorough 

review of the briefs and record, we affirm.1

I.

We review the Social Security Commissioner’s decision for substantial 

evidence and to ensure that the decision was “based on proper legal standards.” 

Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is 

 

1 Smith also claims that “[t]he record as a whole supports an additional severe 

impairment of bipolar disorder.” However, because Smith has failed to offer any argument to 

support her claim, it is deemed abandoned. See Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 

1570, 1573 n.6 (11th Cir. 1989) (stating that issues not argued on appeal are deemed abandoned).

Case: 13-10318 Date Filed: 09/11/2013 Page: 2 of 8 
3

such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support 

a conclusion.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

The Social Security Regulations outline a five-step sequential evaluation 

process to determine whether a claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1520(a)(4). The ALJ must evaluate:

(1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful 

activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment or 

combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment meets or 

equals the severity of the specified impairments in the Listing of 

Impairments; (4) based on a residual functional capacity (“RFC”) 

assessment, whether the claimant can perform any of his or her past 

relevant work despite the impairment; and (5) whether there are 

significant numbers of jobs in the national economy that the claimant

can perform given the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work 

experience.

Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178 (citing Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1237–39 

(11th Cir. 2004)); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i)–(v).

II.

Smith first argues that she established mental retardation as her severe 

impairment at step two. At this step, the ALJ must make a “threshold inquiry” as 

to the medical severity of the claimant’s impairments. McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 

F.2d 1026, 1031 (11th Cir. 1986); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), (c), and 

404.1520a(a). “[T]he finding of any severe impairment, whether or not it qualifies 

as a disability and whether or not it results from a single severe impairment or a 

combination of impairments that together qualify as severe, is enough to satisfy the 

Case: 13-10318 Date Filed: 09/11/2013 Page: 3 of 8 
4

requirement of step two.” Jamison v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 585, 588 (11th Cir. 1987); 

see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1523. Only slight, trivial impairments that “would clearly not 

be expected to interfere with the individual’s ability to work, irrespective of age, 

education or work experience” are not deemed severe at this step. McDaniel, 800 

F.2d at 1031.

In addition, an impairment is not severe if it does not significantly limit the 

claimant’s ability to do basic work activities, which are defined as “the abilities 

and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(b). Examples of 

basic work activities include physical activities like walking, standing, and 

carrying, and “seeing, hearing, and speaking,” as well as understanding, following, 

and remembering simple instructions, using judgment, “[r]esponding appropriately 

to supervision, co-workers[,] and usual work situations,” and “[d]ealing with 

changes in a routine work setting.” Id.

We conclude that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision that 

Smith is not mentally retarded because she presented no evidence that her IQ 

limited her ability to do basic work activities. Even Dr. Linda Abeles, who 

evaluated Smith’s mental health, opined that Smith was capable of manual labor 

work and that Smith’s prognosis for future success in the workplace was “fair,”

despite diagnosing Smith with borderline intelligence. Smith also self-reported on 

multiple occasions that she had no mental impairments and that she was of average 

Case: 13-10318 Date Filed: 09/11/2013 Page: 4 of 8 
5

intelligence, and testified before the ALJ that she could read, write, and count 

monies. Thus, there was substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s 

step two determination.

III.

At step three, the claimant has the burden of proving that her impairment 

meets or equals a listed impairment. See Barron v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 227, 229 

(11th Cir. 1991). “To ‘meet’ a Listing, a claimant must have a diagnosis included 

in the Listings and must provide medical reports documenting that the conditions 

meet the specific criteria of the Listings and the duration requirement.” Wilson v. 

Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1224 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). “To ‘equal’ a 

Listing, the medical findings must be at least equal in severity and duration to the 

listed findings.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Smith claims that her mental retardation impairment met or equaled Listing 

12.05(C). In its introductory paragraph, Listing 12.05, entitled “Mental 

retardation,” provides:

Mental retardation refers to significantly subaverage general 

intellectual functioning with deficits in adaptive functioning initially 

manifested during the developmental period; i.e., the evidence 

demonstrates or supports onset of the impairment before age 22.2

 

 

2 We have held that “a claimant need not present evidence that she manifested deficits in 

adaptive functioning prior to the age [of] twenty-two, when she presented evidence of low IQ 

test results after the age of twenty-two.” Hodges v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1265, 1266 (11th Cir. 

2001).

Case: 13-10318 Date Filed: 09/11/2013 Page: 5 of 8 
6

The required level of severity for this disorder is met when the 

requirements in A, B, C, or D are satisfied. 

20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 § 12.05 (footnote added). Listing 12.05(C) 

specifically requires a “valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 60 through 70 

and a physical or other mental impairment imposing an additional and significant 

work-related limitation of function.” Id. § 12.05(C). “Generally, a claimant meets 

the criteria for presumptive disability under section 12.05(C) when the claimant 

presents a valid I.Q. score of 60 to 70 inclusive, and evidence of an additional 

mental or physical impairment that has more than ‘minimal effect’ on the 

claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.” Lowery v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 

835, 837 (11th Cir. 1992).

We conclude that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that, 

despite Smith’s IQ scores, she did not meet or equal the criteria of Listing 

12.05(C). First, the record supports the conclusion that, due to her limited effort 

during examination and apparent fatigue, Smith’s IQ scores were not valid and 

underestimated her actual level of functioning. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, 

App. 1 § 12.00(D)(6)(a) (noting that the “narrative report that accompanies the test 

results should comment on whether the IQ scores are considered valid and 

consistent with the developmental history and the degree of functional limitation”).

Second, even though she was diagnosed with possible borderline intellectual 

functioning, this diagnosis alone was insufficient to meet the criteria of Listing 

Case: 13-10318 Date Filed: 09/11/2013 Page: 6 of 8 
7

12.05(C). See 20 C.F.R. § 416.925(d) (“Your impairment(s) cannot meet the 

criteria of a listing based only on a diagnosis. To meet the requirements of a listing, 

you must have a medically determinable impairment(s) that satisfies all of the 

criteria of the listing.”). Given that the administering physician, Dr. Janet 

Humphreys, felt that Smith’s IQ scores underestimated her intelligence, the ALJ 

properly determined that Smith did not present a valid IQ score of 60 through 70. 

See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 § 12.05(C). Finally, the ALJ correctly 

noted that Smith’s treatment records did not support a finding of mental 

retardation. See Popp v. Heckler, 779 F.2d 1497, 1500 (11th Cir. 1986) (per 

curiam) (“[T]he ALJ was not required to find that [the claimant] was mentally 

retarded based on the results of the IQ test. The ALJ is required to examine the 

results in conjunction with other medical evidence and the claimant’s daily 

activities and behavior.”). Specifically, records showed that Smith did not claim 

disability due to mental retardation until a consultative examination conducted 

after her hearing in front of the ALJ. Furthermore, during intake for substance 

abuse treatment, Smith reported that she had no problems in school and was of 

average intelligence, and denied having any problems with abstraction, problem 

solving, or thought processes. The fact that none of the other treatment records 

diagnosed Smith with mental retardation supports the ALJ’s rejection of the IQ test 

results and supports the conclusion that Smith did not meet or equal the criteria of 

Case: 13-10318 Date Filed: 09/11/2013 Page: 7 of 8 
8

Listing 12.05(C). Ultimately, because the record evidence showed that the results 

of Smith’s IQ test provided only a low estimate of her IQ and no other medical 

source determined that Smith was mentally retarded, substantial evidence supports 

the ALJ’s finding that Smith did not meet or equal the criteria of Listing 12.05(C).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-10318 Date Filed: 09/11/2013 Page: 8 of 8