Opinion ID: 1087460
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: hickel’s case before the alj

Text: Here the ALJ determined at steps one and two that Hickel had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since birth and had the severe impairment of mild mental retardation. At step three, the ALJ concluded that Hickel’s impairment of mild mental retardation did not meet or equal a listed impairment, specifically the mental retardation listing in C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, § 12.05 (2012) (“Listing 12.05”). 2 At step four, the ALJ concluded that Hickel had the RFC to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels, but with the non-exertional limitations that she perform only simple, unskilled, repetitive work and be given verbal instructions. The ALJ further concluded that, based on Hickel’s RFC, Hickel could perform her past relevant work as a nursery school attendant. Alternatively, the ALJ determined at step five that Hickel could perform other work, such as small product assembler, hand packer, or eye glass assembler, based on the 2 On August 1, 2013, while this appeal was pending, the Social Security Administration amended Listing 12.05 by replacing the words “mental retardation” with “intellectual disability.” See 78 Fed. Reg. 46,499, 46,501 (to be codified at 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1). This change was made because “the term ‘mental retardation’ has negative connotations,” and “has become offensive to many people.” Id. at 46,499. The Social Security Administration stated that the change “does not affect the actual medical definition of the disorder or available programs or services.” Id. at 46,500. Because the amendment does not effect a substantive change, and to avoid confusion, this opinion uses the term “mental retardation” used by the parties and the ALJ. 3 Case: 13-11172 Date Filed: 10/28/2013 Page: 4 of 19 testimony of the vocational expert. Thus, the ALJ concluded that Hickel was not disabled.