Source: http://ks.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170906_0001206.DKS.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-01-16 08:50:53
Document Index: 769050673

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 416', '§ 405', '§ 405', 'art, 287', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 404', '§ 12']

SHERYL RAJEAN YOUNG, Plaintiff,
Plaintiff seeks review of a decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security (hereinafter Commissioner) denying Disability Insurance benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits under sections 216(i), 223, 1602, and 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423, 1381a, and 1382c(a)(3)(A) (hereinafter the Act). Finding no error in the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision, the court ORDERS that judgment shall be entered pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) AFFIRMING the final decision of the Commissioner.
Plaintiff applied for DIB and SSI benefits, alleging disability beginning August 13, 2012. (R. 192, 358). Plaintiff exhausted proceedings before the Commissioner, and now seeks judicial review of the final decision denying benefits. She argues that the ALJ erred at step three in finding that Plaintiff's condition does not meet or medically equal Listing 12.05C for intellectual disability, and also erred in numerous respects in assessing the opinion evidence and Plaintiff's allegations of symptoms.
The court's review is guided by the Act. Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048, 1052 (10th Cir. 2009). Section 405(g) provides that in judicial review “[t]he findings of the Commissioner as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court determines whether the ALJ's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether he applied the correct legal standard. Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080, 1084 (10th Cir. 2007); accord, White v. Barnhart, 287 F.3d 903, 905 (10th Cir. 2001). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but it is less than a preponderance; it is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); see also, Wall, 561 F.3d at 1052; Gossett v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 802, 804 (10th Cir. 1988).
The Commissioner uses the familiar five-step sequential process to evaluate a claim for disability. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; Wilson v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 1136, 1139 (10th Cir. 2010) (citing Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750 (10th Cir. 1988)). “If a determination can be made at any of the steps that a claimant is or is not disabled, evaluation under a subsequent step is not necessary.” Wilson, 602 F.3d at 1139 (quoting Lax, 489 F.3d at 1084). In the first three steps, the Commissioner determines whether claimant has engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset, whether she has a severe impairment(s), and whether the severity of her impairment(s) meets or equals the severity of any listed impairment. 20 C.F.R., Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1; Williams, 844 F.2d at 750-51. After evaluating step three, the Commissioner assesses claimant's residual functional capacity (RFC). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). This assessment is used at both step four and step five of the sequential evaluation process. Id.
The court finds no error as alleged by Plaintiff. It addresses the alleged errors in the order presented in Plaintiff's Brief.
II. Step Three, Listing 12.05C
Plaintiff claims that the ALJ erred in evaluating Listing 12.05C (Intellectual Disability) at step three of the sequential evaluation process. She argues that the ALJ erroneously relied on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in finding that her condition does not meet Listing 12.05C, that a long history of employment in a semiskilled job does not preclude later meeting the Listing, that record evidence shows deficits in adaptive functioning manifested during the developmental period, that the ALJ acknowledged a Full Scale IQ score of 65, that a claimant's additional physical or mental impairment need not be independently disabling, and that the ALJ failed to consider whether Plaintiff's condition medically equaled the Listing.
The Commissioner argues that the ALJ reasonably found that Plaintiff's condition does not meet Listing 12.05C because she does not have the required deficits in adaptive functioning. She points to Dr. Steffan's diagnosis of borderline intellectual functioning because Plaintiff did not have deficits in adaptive functioning and to the fact that all treatment providers diagnosed borderline intellectual functioning rather than intellectual disability or mild mental retardation, as support for the ALJ's finding, and argues that even if the ALJ erred in relying on Dr. Whitten's estimated IQ of 70, the lack of deficits in adaptive functioning alone was sufficient to demonstrate the Listing is not met. Finally, she argues that the state agency psychological consultants found Plaintiff's condition does not medically equal a Listing and Plaintiff “makes no plausible argument as to how her impairments equal Listing 12.05C.
A. Step Three Standard for Evaluating Listing 12.05C
The “Listing of Impairments” describes the severity of certain impairments that the Commissioner considers disabling. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1525(a), 416.925(a); see also, 20 C.F.R., Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. If a claimant's condition meets or medically equals the severity of a listed impairment, her impairment is conclusively presumed disabling. Williams, 844 F.2d at 751; see Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 141 (1987) (if an impairment “meets or equals one of the listed impairments, the claimant is conclusively presumed to be disabled”). However, Plaintiff “has the burden at step three of demonstrating, through medical evidence, that h[er] impairments ‘meet all of the specified medical criteria' contained in a particular listing.” Riddle v. Halter, No. 00- 7043, 2001 WL 282344 at *1 (10th Cir. Mar. 22, 2001) (quoting Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990) (emphasis in Zebley)).
Listing 12.05 provides in relevant part:
Intellectual disability 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.
20 C.F.R., Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 § 12.05.
Listing 12.05 is somewhat different than the other listings for mental disorders. Id., § 12.00A. That Listing contains a diagnostic description of intellectual disability (introductory paragraph) and four sets of criteria describing listing-level severity (Paragraphs A through D). 20 C.F.R., Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 §§ 12.00A, 12.05(A-D). Paragraphs A through D provide four distinct and independent ways in which an individual having significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning with deficits in adaptive functioning initially manifested during the developmental period might satisfy the criteria of Listing 12.05. Id.; McKown v. Shalala, No. 93-7000, 1993 WL 335788, *1 (10th Cir. Aug. 26, 1993) (decided when the Listing terminology used “mental retardation”). To meet the listing, a claimant must show that her condition satisfies both the diagnostic description of intellectual disability and any one of the four severity criteria. Id., § 12.00A.
If a claimant has an additional physical or mental impairment(s) which is “severe” within the meaning of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c), it will be considered to impose an additional and significant work-related limitation of function satisfying the third criterion of Listing 12.05C. 20 C.F.R., Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 § 12.00(A); see also, Hinkle v. Apfel, 132 F.3d 1349, 1352-53 (10th Cir. 1997) (reaching the same conclusion before the regulations were changed in 2000 to specify the equivalence between “severe” impairments and “additional and significant work-related limitation of function.”). Based upon the principles discussed above, to meet Listing 12.05C, a claimant must show that certain criteria are met: (1) evidence of onset of intellectual disability before age twenty-two (deficits in adaptive functioning initially manifested during the developmental period), (2) a valid IQ score of 60 through 70, and (3) a severe physical or mental impairment in addition to the alleged intellectual disability.