Opinion ID: 725368
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: IQ of 70 or less; or

Text: 29 2. Seizure disorder, with at least one major motor seizure in the year prior to application; or 30 3. Significant interference with communication due to speech, hearing or visual defects; or 31 4. Significant emotional disorder. 32 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App. 1. Tommy claims that he has a less severe motor dysfunction and significant interference with communication due to speech, hearing or visual defects. There is no question that Tommy's difficulties with his right hand and arm are a less severe motor dysfunction; the ALJ, however, concluded that Tommy's speech impediment was mild, and not equal in severity to either listing. 33 Whether this finding is supported by substantial evidence is a close question. The ALJ noted that Tommy has a less than moderate limitation in the communicative functioning domain. He relies on evidence in the record that demonstrates that Tommy's voice is within normal limits; his fluency is within normal limits; and he has adequate structures for speech. In addition, Tommy was in the appropriate grade for his age, and was performing adequately. 34 On the other hand, uncontradicted evidence shows that Tommy has difficulty articulating s and z phonemes. Moreover, the Spokane School District examination, his teachers' comments and his mother's testimony all indicate that his teachers have difficulty understanding him in the class room setting. In addition, although he skipped a grade (which placed him in his age-appropriate grade because he had repeated a grade early on), it appears that his grades are below his aptitude due to some combination of his slower writing speed and his difficulties interacting in the classroom setting. Overall, however, we find that the ALJ's decision that Tommy's speech impediment did not cause significant interference with communication is supported by substantial evidence. 35 Lastly, Tommy argues that the ALJ erred in assessing the list criteria, and thus should not have made an individualized assessment to determine if Tommy's impairment was comparable to an impairment that would qualify an adult for benefits. Because substantial evidence supports the ALJ's findings regarding the list criteria, the ALJ was required to conduct an individualized assessment. Tommy raises no other challenge to the ALJ's individualized assessment.