Hutson v. Astrue
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff's Petition for Review (Dkt. 1 ) is GRANTED. This action shall be REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Signed by Judge Candy W Dale. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (ja)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
JOHN HUTSON,
Petitioner,
Case No. 1:11-cv-00302-CWD
v.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
John Hutson (“Petitioner”) seeks review of the Commissioner of Social Security
Administration’s final decision denying Petitioner’s application for Supplemental
Security Income disability benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. (Dkt. 1.)
The Court has reviewed the Petition for Review and the Answer, the parties’ memoranda,
and the administrative record (“AR”), and for the reasons that follow, will remand to the
Commissioner with an order to award benefits.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
Petitioner filed an application for Supplemental Security Income on April 13,
2009, alleging disability beginning March 15, 1994, due to mental impairments.
Petitioner’s application was denied initially and on reconsideration, and a hearing was
held on January 20, 2011, before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) John T. Molleur.
The ALJ issued a decision finding Petitioner not disabled on February 10, 2011, and
Petitioner timely requested review by the Appeals Council. The Appeals Council denied
Petitioner’s request for review on June 1, 2011, making the ALJ’s decision the final
decision of the Commissioner. Petitioner timely filed an appeal of the Commissioner’s
final decision to this Court on June 30, 2011. (Dkt. 1.) The Court has jurisdiction to
review the ALJ’s decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
At the January 20, 2011 hearing, Petitioner was represented by counsel and
testified on his own behalf. The ALJ also heard testimony from vocational expert Polly
Peterson. Born in 1990, Petitioner was four years of age at the time of his alleged onset of
disability date, eighteen years of age at the time his application was filed, and twenty
years of age at the time of the ALJ’s decision. Concerning his education, Petitioner was
placed in special education beginning in the second grade and left school after the eighth
grade. Petitioner reported making multiple attempts to pass the General Educational
Development tests, but he has not received a General Equivalency Degree (“GED”).
Petitioner has no past work experience.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2
SEQUENTIAL PROCESS
The Commissioner follows a five-step sequential evaluation for determining
whether a claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. At step one, it must
be determined whether the claimant is engaged in substantially gainful activity. The ALJ
found Petitioner had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since April 3, 2009,
Petitioner’s protective filing date. (AR 16.) At step two, it must be determined whether
the claimant suffers from a severe impairment. The ALJ found that Petitioner suffered
from the following severe impairments within the meaning of the Regulations: borderline
intellectual functioning; learning disorder; and mood disorder, not otherwise specified.
(AR 16.)
Step three asks whether a claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed
impairment. A finding that one or more of a claimant’s impairments meets or equals a
listing presumptively demonstrates disability. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d) and
416.920(d); see also, Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 613 F.3d 1217, 1221-22 (9th Cir.
2010). The ALJ found that Petitioner’s impairments did not meet or equal the criteria for
the listed impairments, specifically considering Petitioner’s mental impairments under
Listing 12.04 (Affective Disorders) and Listing 12.05 (Mental Retardation). If a
claimant’s impairments do not meet or equal a listing, the Commissioner must assess the
claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) and determine at step four whether the
claimant has demonstrated an inability to perform past relevant work.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3
The ALJ determined that Petitioner had the RFC to perform a full range of work at
all exertional levels with the following nonexertional limitations: “he can follow 1 to 2
step instructions; he can work in a low stress environment with only occasional decision
making and changes in the work setting, and no production quotas; and he can have only
brief, superficial contact with the general public, co-workers and supervisors.” (AR 18.)
The decision at step four – where the ALJ ordinarily considers whether a claimant
is capable of performing past relevant work – was not applicable in this case because
Petitioner has no past relevant work. At step five of the sequential analysis, considering
Petitioner’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, the ALJ
found that Petitioner could perform work existing in significant levels in the national
economy. (AR 24.) Based upon the testimony of the vocational expert, the ALJ found that
such jobs included: farm laborer, chicken farm laborer, and vegetable farm laborer. (AR
24.) Given the finding that Petitioner could perform work existing in significant numbers
in the national economy, the ALJ concluded that Petitioner was not disabled within the
meaning of the Social Security Act.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Petitioner bears the burden of showing that disability benefits are proper because
of the inability “to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically
determinable physical or mental impairment which . . . has lasted or can be expected to
last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A); see
also 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A); Rhinehart v. Fitch, 438 F.2d 920, 921 (9th Cir. 1971).
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4
An individual will be determined to be disabled only if his physical or mental
impairments are of such severity that he not only cannot do previous work but is unable,
considering his age, education, and work experience, to engage in any other kind of
substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A).
On review, the Court is instructed to uphold the decision of the Commissioner if
the decision is supported by substantial evidence and is not the product of legal error. 42
U.S.C. § 405(g); Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 340 U.S. 474
(1951); Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1113 (9th Cir. 1999) (as amended); DeLorme v.
Sullivan, 924 F.2d 841, 846 (9th Cir. 1991). Substantial evidence 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). It is more than a scintilla but less than
a preponderance, Jamerson v Chater, 112 F.3d 1064, 1066 (9th Cir. 1997), and “does not
mean a large or considerable amount of evidence.” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552,
565 (1988).
If the evidence can reasonably support either affirming or reversing a decision, the
Court may not substitute its own judgment for that of the commissioner. Robbins v. Soc.
Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006). The Court, however, “must consider the
entire record as a whole, weighing both the evidence that supports and the evidence that
detracts from the Commissioner’s conclusion, and may not affirm simply by isolating a
specific quantum of supporting evidence.” Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035
(9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5
DISCUSSION
Petitioner challenges the ALJ’s decision on three grounds. First, Petitioner argues
that the ALJ committed legal error at step three of the five-step sequential analysis by
finding that Petitioner’s mental impairments did not meet the requirements of Listing
12.05 (Mental Retardation). Second, Petitioner argues that the ALJ failed to properly
evaluate the medical opinion evidence. Third, Petitioner argues that the ALJ failed to
properly evaluate Petitioner’s credibility. Based upon these assignments of error,
Petitioner requests that the case be remanded with an order for immediate payment of
benefits.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Petitioner’s mental
impairments satisfy all of the necessary criteria for Listing 12.05C. Because a finding that
a claimant meets or equals a listed impairment set forth in the federal regulations
presumptively demonstrates disability, the Court need not address Petitioner’s remaining
assignments of error and the case will be remanded to the Commissioner with an order to
award benefits.
1.
Listing 12.05C
At step three of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine whether
the claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or equals an
impairment listed in the Appendix to the federal regulations.1 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d)
1
The Appendix containing the listed impairments appears in the Regulations at 20
C.F.R., Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6
and 416.920(d). The listing of impairments sets forth impairments that have been deemed
severe enough to prevent an individual from engaging in any gainful activity, regardless
of age, education, or work experience. In other words, if a claimant meets or equals a
listed impairment, he or she is presumptively disabled. Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
613 F.3d 1217, 1221-22 (9th Cir. 2010).
The claimant bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of disability under
the listing of impairments. See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 955 (9th Cir. 2002)
(citing Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 1999)). To “meet” a listed
impairment, a claimant must establish that his condition satisfies each element of the
listed impairment in question. See Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990); Tackett,
180 F.3d at 1099. To “equal” a listed impairment, the claimant “must establish symptoms,
signs, and laboratory findings” at least equal in severity and duration to each element of
the most similar listed impairment. Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1099-1100 (quoting 20 C.F.R.
404.1526).
Here, the ALJ found at step two of the five-step sequential analysis that Petitioner
suffered from the following severe impairments: borderline intellectual functioning;
learning disorder; and mood disorder. (AR 16.) At step three, however, the ALJ found
that Petitioner’s impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment under the federal
regulations. (AR 17-18). Petitioner argues that the evidence in the record demonstrates
that his mental impairments meet the criteria of the listing for mental retardation (Listing
12.05C). The Court agrees.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 7
Listing 12.00 governs mental disorders generally and Sections 12.02 through 12.10
identify nine diagnostic categories of impairments that may constitute listed impairments
within the meaning of the Regulations. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 § 12.00A.
Listing 12.05 sets forth the criteria for the mental disorder of mental retardation. Most of
the mental disorder listings require a claimant to demonstrate the existence of
impairment-related functional limitations that are incompatible with the ability to do
substantial gainful activity and which are the result of the mental disorder described in the
specific listing. Listing 12.05, however, does not follow that model.
The Regulations recognize that Listing 12.05 is different:
The structure of the listing for mental retardation (12.05) is
different from that of the other mental disorders listings.
Listing 12.05 contains an introductory paragraph with the
diagnostic description for mental retardation. It also contains
four sets of criteria (paragraphs A through D).
20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 § 12.00A. The Regulations then instruct the
prospective claimant that, “[i]f your impairment satisfies the diagnostic description in the
introductory paragraph and any one of the four sets of criteria, we will find that your
impairment meets the listing.” Id.
Here, paragraph C of Listing 12.05 is implicated. To satisfy paragraph C, the
claimant must have “[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 § 12.00C. Thus, to meet the
requirements of Listing 12.05C, a claimant must satisfy three elements: (1) the claimant
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 8
must satisfy the introductory paragraph by demonstrating that the mental retardation was
initially manifested during the development period (before the claimant turned 22 years of
age); (2) have a valid verbal, performance or full scale IQ of 60 through 70; and (3) have
a physical or other mental impairment imposing additional and significant work-related
limitations of function. Each of the above three elements will be addressed below.
A.
Introductory Paragraph of 12.05
The introductory paragraph of Listing 12.05 provides a diagnostic description for
mental retardation and states the following: “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.” 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 § 12.05.
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Petitioner was born in 1990 and was
twenty years of age at the time of the hearing before the ALJ. Thus, everything in the
record pertains to Petitioner’s “developmental period” for the purposes of the
introductory paragraph contained in Listing 12.05.
The ALJ concluded that Petitioner did not satisfy the introductory paragraph. (AR
17.) The reasoning in support of this finding is limited to one paragraph of the ALJ’s
decision and provides the following:
the claimant has never received a diagnosis for mental
retardation. In addition, the claimant is able to drive, he
performs household chores, he uses a computer for looking
things up, for playing games or for reading books, and he
testified to most recently reading half of a Tom Clancy book
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 9
that he was able to understand. Accordingly, the record fails
to show functioning adaptive deficits that are prerequisites for
meeting listing 12.05.
(AR 17.) For the reasons outlined below, these are not legally sufficient reasons to
support the ALJ’s conclusion that petitioner failed to establish subaverage general
intellectual functioning with deficits in adaptive functions before age 22.
The first reason the ALJ gave in support of his finding that Petitioner failed to
satisfy the introductory paragraph was that Petitioner “has never received a diagnosis for
mental retardation.” (AR 17.) The Commissioner argues that this was a valid reason for
finding that Petitioner did not meet Listing 12.05 and that “a diagnosis of mental
retardation is a prerequisite to meeting or equaling Listing 12.05.” (Def.’s Br. at 5, Dkt.
14.) The Court disagrees with the Commissioner that the Listing’s introductory paragraph
requires a formal diagnosis of mental retardation. The language of the Listing includes
nothing about receiving a formal diagnosis. Moreover, the case law supports the
conclusion that Listing 12.05 does not require a formal diagnosis of mental retardation.
See Christner v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 790, 793 (8th Cir. 2007) (“We have specifically held
that a formal diagnosis of mental retardation is not required to fall within the confines of
section 12.05"); see also, Gomez v. Astrue, 695 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1057 (C.D. Cal. 2010)
(“the absence of a diagnosis of ‘mental retardation’ does not preclude plaintiff from
meeting section 12.05C.”). The Commissioner has provided no authority to the contrary.
Based upon the above discussion, the Court finds that the ALJ’s reliance upon the
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 10
absence of a formal diagnosis of mental retardation constituted legal error.
In support of his conclusion that the record failed to show functioning adaptive
deficits, the ALJ noted that “the claimant is able to drive, he performs household chores,
he uses a computer for looking things up, for playing games or for reading books, and he
testified to most recently reading half of a Tom Clancy book.” (AR 17.) In factually
similar cases, federal courts have found similar reasons legally insufficient to conclude
that the claimant did not meet Listing 12.05C. See Markle v. Barnhart, 324 F.3d 182,
186-87 (3d Cir. 2003) (holding that the ALJ improperly relied on daily activities such as
paying bills, using an ATM machine, and administering medication in finding that such
activities were inconsistent with mental retardation under 12.05C); Brown v. Sec’y of
health and Human Servs., 948 F.2d 268, 270 (6th Cir. 1991) (finding daily activities such
as using public transit, driving, making change at a grocery store, doing laundry and
cleaning, following a road map, and reading a newspaper are not inconsistent with Listing
12.05). Moreover, the cases reaching a different conclusion are factually distinguishable
from this case. See Popp v. Heckler, 779 F.2d 1497, 1499-1500 (11th Cir. 1986) (finding
substantial evidence for ALJ’s conclusion that claimant was not mentally retarded where
the claimant had a two-year college degree, was enrolled in a third year of college and
had a history of several skilled jobs including teaching algebra at a private school).
Here, contrary to the ALJ’s conclusion, the record supports the finding that
Petitioner suffered from subaverage general intellectual functioning with deficits in
adaptive functioning before age 22. Petitioner was diagnosed with Pervasive
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 11
Developmental Disorder at age four. (AR 228.) He was placed in special education
classes beginning in the second grade until the time he left school. (AR 220.) Petitioner
dropped out of school after the eighth grade. (Id.) At age 16, Petitioner received a
performance IQ of 70. (AR 156.) He has attempted the GED exam multiple times, but has
failed to pass. (AR 182.) In 2008, Petitioner was assigned a Global Assessment of
Functioning (“GAF”) scale score of 50, which signifies serious difficulties in social and
occupational functioning.2 (AR 264.) The record also indicates that Petitioner has been
prescribed medications for his mental disorders since age seven. (AR 228.)
The above facts support a finding that Petitioner’s subaverage intellectual
functioning with deficits in adaptive functioning initially manifested during the
development period; i.e., the evidence demonstrates or supports onset of the impairment
before age 22. See Markle, 324 F.3d at 189 (finding evidence that the claimant took
special education classes through the ninth grade, dropped out in the tenth grade,
struggled to obtain a GED, and had limited work history supported a finding that onset of
mental retardation occurred before age 22); Maresh v. Barnhart, 438 F.3d 897, 900 (8th
Cir. 2006) (holding that ALJ erred in finding claimant’s mental retardation did not
manifest itself before age 22 where claimant attended special education classes, dropped
2
The Global Assessment of Functioning, or GAF, is a numeric scale used by
mental health clinicians and physicians to subjectively rate the social, occupational, and
psychological functioning of adults. The scale is presented and described in the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) published by he
American Psychiatric Association.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 12
out of school in the ninth grade, had trouble with reading, writing, and math, and had
frequent fights with other children).
Based upon the above discussion, the Court concludes that the record supports the
finding that Petitioner satisfies the introductory paragraph of Listing 12.05, and the ALJ’s
ruling to the contrary was the product of legal error and not supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
B.
Petitioner’s IQ
The second element that a claimant must prove to meet the criteria of Listing
12.05C is “[a] valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 60 through 70.” 20 C.F.R. Pt.
404, Subpt. P, App. 1 § 12.05. The record indicates that in August of 2006, Dr. Gunnar
Skollingsberg, Ph.D. found that Petitioner had a performance IQ score of 70. (AR 156.)
The ALJ acknowledged the existence of this IQ score in his decision. (AR 17.) The ALJ
did not reject the validity of the score. He stated, however, that “the record also shows
higher subsequent scores.” (AR 17.) The reference to higher scores as a reason for
concluding that a claimant does not satisfy the requirements of 12.05C constitutes legal
error. The Appendix to the Regulations makes clear that, when multiple IQ scores appear
in the record, the ALJ must consider the lowest of these scores. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt.
P, App. 1 § 12.00(D)(6)(c) (“[i]n cases where more than one IQ is customarily derived
from the tests administered . . . we use the lowest . . . in conjunction with 12.05.”).
Because the record contains an IQ score within the range identified in paragraph C
of Listing 12.05, and the ALJ did not take issue with the validity of that score, the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 13
finds that Petitioner has satisfied the IQ element of Listing 12.05C.
C.
Additional Limitation
The final criteria that a claimant must demonstrate to satisfy paragraph C under
Listing 12.05 is that the claimant has “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. Because the ALJ determined that “the record fails to show
functioning adaptive deficits” as a prerequisite to Listing 12.05, (AR 17), the ALJ did not
specifically address whether the second prong of paragraph C under Listing 12.05 had
been met.
The Appendix to the Regulations states that, “[f]or paragraph C, we will assess the
degree of functional limitation the additional impairment(s) imposes to determine if it
significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, i.e., is a
‘severe’ impairment(s), as defined in §§ 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c).” 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404,
Subpt. P, App. 1 § 12.00A. In other words, a person who has a severe physical or other
mental impairment, as defined at step two of the disability analysis, apart from the
decreased intellectual function, meets the second prong of paragraph C under Listing
12.05.
Here, at step two of the five-step analysis, the ALJ found that Petitioner’s mood
disorder was a severe impairment within the meaning of 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). (AR 16.)
That finding sufficiently satisfies the second prong of paragraph C under Listing 12.05.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 14
2.
Remedy
Petitioner requests that the Court remand this case and order an immediate
payment of benefits. A district court may remand a social security case with an order for
immediate payment of benefits where "(1) the ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient
reasons for rejecting the evidence; (2) there are no outstanding issues that must be
resolved before a determination of disability can be made; and (3) it is clear from the
record that the ALJ would be required to find the claimant disabled were such evidence
credited." Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2000).
The Ninth Circuit recently elaborated on when an order for immediate payment of
benefits is appropriate, stating: “When an ALJ’s denial of benefits is not supported by the
record, ‘the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency for
additional investigation or explanation.’” Hill v. Astrue, __ F.3d __, 2012 WL 3185576
*8 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 595 (9th Cir. 2004)). The
Court of Appeals also stated that the court “may exercise [its] discretion and direct an
award of benefits ‘where no useful purpose would be served by further administrative
proceedings and the record has been thoroughly developed.’” Id. (quoting Swenson v.
Sullivan, 876 F.2d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 1989)). “Remand for further proceedings is
appropriate where there are outstanding issues that must be resolved before a
determination can be made, and it is not clear from the record that the ALJ would be
required to find the claimant disabled if all the evidence were properly evaluated.” Id.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 15
The Court finds that no useful purpose would be served by further administrative
proceedings. The Court has determined that the ALJ erred at step three of the five-step
analysis and that Petitioner satisfies all the criteria required to meet Listing 12.05C. A
determination at step three that a claimant meets a listing presumptively establishes
disability. Thus, there are no outstanding issues that must be resolved before a
determination can be made. Based on these considerations, the case will be remanded
with an order directing the immediate payment of benefits.
ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1)
Plaintiff’s Petition for Review (Dkt. 1) is GRANTED.
2)
This action shall be REMANDED to the Commissioner for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
3)
This Remand shall be considered a “sentence four remand,” consistent with
42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and Akopyan v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 852, 854 (9th Cir. 2002).
DATED: September 19, 2012
Honorable Candy W. Dale
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 16
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?