Opinion ID: 171853
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Discussion Step Three

Text: At step three, the ALJ considers whether a claimant's impairments meet or equal a listed impairment. Clifton v. Chater, 79 F.3d 1007, 1009 (10th Cir.1996). Claimant argues that in light of the diagnosis by Steven Stockdale, Ph.D., that she had a cognitive disorder NOS, major depression recurrent, and anxiety disorder NOS and a full scale IQ of 67, Aplt. Admin. App. at 239, the ALJ should have considered whether she met or equaled one of the listings for mental retardation, Listing 12.05C, 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.05C, or another listing. She claims that she meets or equals Listing 12.05C. Aplt. Opening Br. at 13. To me, the ALJ's decision does not reflect that he considered whether or not claimant met or equaled Listing 12.05C, which may be understandable since claimant did not argue at the hearing that she met or equaled this Listing. This does not effect a waiver in this court, see Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 108-12, 120 S.Ct. 2080, 147 L.Ed.2d 80 (2000), but only may explain why the ALJ did not address Listing 12.05. The ALJ's failure to consider Listing 12.05C was an error, however, because the record contains some evidence showing that claimant satisfied the requirements of Listing 12.05C to show 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. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.05C. It is for the ALJ to make appropriate findings in the first instance. E.g., Allen v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1140, 1144 (10th Cir.2004); Clifton, 79 F.3d at 1009-10 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(b)(1)). Therefore, I would remand the question of whether claimant meets or equals Listing 12.05C to the ALJ. The agency urges us to conclude that claimant cannot meet or equal Listing 12.05C because the ALJ has already found that she did not satisfy the B criteria of Listing 12.07, Aplt. Admin. App. at 22, foreclosing a finding that she satisfies the B criteria of Listing 12.05. An examination of these two Listings, however, shows that Listing 12.05 has neither the same structure nor the same B criteria as Listing 12.07. Therefore, the agency's argument is without merit. The agency also argues that claimant has not presented any evidence to satisfy the first sentence in Listing 12.05, called, alternatively, the capsule definition or the diagnostic description. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R., Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.00A. The capsule definition requires claimant to show significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning with deficits in adaptive behavior initially manifested during the developmental period, i.e., the evidence demonstrates or supports onset of the impairment before age 22. Id. § 12.05. The agency's argument asks us to overstep our authority, however. [A]s a court acting within the confines of its administrative review authority, we are empowered only to `review the ALJ's decision for substantial evidence' and, accordingly, `we are not in a position to draw factual conclusions on behalf of the ALJ.' Allen, 357 F.3d at 1144 (quoting Drapeau v. Massanari, 255 F.3d 1211, 1214 (10th Cir.2001)). Because the ALJ did not expressly consider Listing 12.05, I would remand for the ALJ to make appropriate findings in the first instance, which is his duty to do. 42 U.S.C. § 405(b)(1). For the remand, I note that we have previously pointed out that the agency has never adopted a standard of measurement for the term deficits in adaptive functioning in the capsule definition of Listing 12.05. Barnes v. Barnhart, 116 Fed.Appx. 934, 942 (10th Cir. 2004). The Commissioner publicly announced in April 2002, after claimant filed her application for SSI benefits, that the four major professional organizations dealing with mental retardation each has a somewhat different standard for measuring deficits in adaptive functioning, but the Commissioner expressly declined to adopt any particular one of them. 67 Fed.Reg. 20,018, 20,022 (Apr. 24, 2002). Rather, the Commissioner allow[s] use of any of the measurement methods recognized and endorsed by the professional organizations. 67 Fed.Reg. at 20,022. The ALJ therefore should choose a standard of measurement and notify claimant what it is. I cannot conclude that the ALJ erred by failing to consider any other listings, since claimant does not specify any other listings which she arguably equals or meets. Claimant also argues that the ALJ erred at step three by failing to develop the record with regard to her cognitive and other mental disorders. Because I would remand based on Clifton error, I would leave it to the ALJ to determine what further record development may be required. See, e.g., Hawkins v. Chater, 113 F.3d 1162, 1167 (10th Cir.1997). Claimant's final step-three argument is that the ALJ erred by failing to consider her impairments in combination. It goes without saying that, on remand, claimant's impairments must be considered singly and in combination. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(B); Hargis v. Sullivan, 945 F.2d 1482, 1491 (10th Cir.1991).