Alicea v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
18
OPINION and ORDER adopting and affirming 16 the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 9/29/14. (jk1)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Christine Alicea,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 2:13--cv-300
Corolyn W. Colvin, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Mark Abel
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Christine Alicea ("Plaintiff') brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g) seeking review of an adverse decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security ("Commissioner"). This matter is before the Court for consideration of
Magistrate Judge Abel's January 17, 2014 Report and Recommendation
("R&R"), ECF No. 16, recommending that the Court affirm the Commissioner's
decision. On January 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed Objections to the R&R. ECF No.
17. For the following reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections,
ADOPTS the R&R in part, and AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff applied for social security disability benefits, supplemental security
income, and child insurance benefits, alleging disability beginning on January 1,
1983, when she was seven years old. The medical records reflect that Plaintiff
Case No. 2:13-cv-300
Page 1 of 6
suffers from borderline intellectual functioning, polysubstance abuse disorder,
and a major depressive disorder with psychotic features. See ALJ Decision,
PAGEID # 61, ECF No. 9. 1
On January 24, 2012, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") determined
that from January 1, 1983 through the date of his decision, January 24, 2012,
Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. /d. at
PAGEID #59. He specifically found that Plaintiff's diagnosis of borderline
intellectual functioning does not meet or equal the requirements for intellectual
disability as described in Listing 12.05. /d. 2
On January 17,2014, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court
affirm the Commissioner's decision, finding that substantial evidence supports
the ALJ's finding that Plaintiff did not meet or equal the requirements of Listing
12.05(C). R&R 28, ECF No. 16. Plaintiff objects on three grounds: (1) Listing
12.05 does not require a diagnosis of mental retardation; (2) she is not required
to produce an IQ score obtained before age twenty-two; and (3) the ALJ should
have given Dr. Rodio's assessment controlling weight.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Court reviews Plaintiff's Objections to
the R&R de novo. The Court may accept, reject, or alter the Magistrate Judge's
1
The R&R provides a detailed overview of the relevant medical records and the
evidence offered at the administrative hearing. R&R 2-18, ECF No. 16.
2
The ALJ did not address polysubstance abuse or major depressive disorders, and the
Plaintiff does not object to the Magistrate Judge's decision to do the same.
Case No. 2:13-cv-300
Page 2 of6
recommendation as it sees fit. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within the Social Security
context, the Court reviews whether substantial evidence supports the
Commissioner's decisions and whether the Commissioner made his or her
decision pursuant to the applicable standards. Ealy v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 594
F.3d 504, 512 (6th Cir. 2010).
Ill. ANALYSIS
In finding that Plaintiff was not disabled, the ALJ followed the five-step
evaluation process outlined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920. He found
that although Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity and has
severe impairments, her impairments do not meet or equal the severity of one of
the impairments listed in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. ALJ
Decision, PAGEID # 61, ECF No. 9. He specifically found that Plaintiff's
diagnosis of borderline intellectual functioning does not meet or equal the
requirements for an intellectual disability as described in Listing 12.05(C). 3 /d.
3
Listing 12.05 states in relevant part:
12.05 Intellectual disability: 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.
The required level of severity for this disorder is met when the
requirements in A, B, C, or D are satisfied.
C. 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 ....
Case No. 2:13-cv-300
Page 3 of 6
In affirming the ALJ's decision, the R&R implicitly approved of the ALJ's
reasoning regarding the lack of evidence of deficits in adaptive functioning, but it
affirmed the ALJ's decision on other grounds. The R&R found that Plaintiff's
borderline intellectual functioning does not meet or equal Listing 12.05(C)
because she lacked a mental retardation diagnosis. Plaintiff is correct, however,
that Listing 12.05(C) does not require a diagnosis of mental retardation. Sheeks
v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 544 F. App'x 639, 641 (6th Cir. 2013)
("borderline intellectual functioning, a lesser diagnosis than mental retardation,
does not rule out the possibility of a finding of mental retardation [under
12.05C].)." Plaintiff is also correct that she is not required to produce a qualifying
IQ score from before the age of twenty-two to fulfill the requirements of Listing
12.05. West v. Comm'rof Soc. Sec., 240 F. App'x. 692, 698 (6th Cir. 2007).
Nevertheless, Plaintiff must still introduce other evidence of deficiencies in
"adaptive functioning" during her developmental period. See West, 240 F. App'x.
at 698. "Adaptive functioning includes a claimant's effectiveness in areas such
as social skills, communication, and daily living skills." /d. The ALJ found no
evidence establishing deficits before age twenty-two, ALJ Decision, PAGEID
# 61, ECF No.9, and the Court agrees. Although Plaintiff asserted that she was
in special education classes during grade school and dropped out of the sixth
grade, evidence of special education classes and a failure to finish high school is
20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. Consistent with earlier versions of this provision,
the R&R uses the term "mental retardation" instead of "intellectual disability."
Case No. 2:13-cv-300
Page 4 of 6
"a mere toehold in the record on an essential element of the listing." Sheeks,
544 F. App'x at 642. Plaintiff must show more, such as the inability to care for
herself or trouble handling social situations. /d. Because Plaintiff has not done
so, she has failed to present sufficient evidence of a severe impairment since the
age of seven.
Plaintiff's remaining objection, that Dr. Radio's assessment should have
controlling weight, is not well taken. As explained in the R&R, "Dr. Radio's
assessment that plaintiff had a GAF score of 60 supports the administrative law
judge's conclusion that she had only mild limitations in functioning." R&R 28,
ECF No. 16. Thus, affording Dr. Radio's assessment more weight would hurt,
rather than help, Plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff argues her GAF score is not a valid
reason to discredit Dr. Radio's opinion because Dr. Radio later opined that
Plaintiff's anxiety and depression would likely worsen and that she would be
unable to focus consistently and productively. But the ALJ properly gave Dr.
Radio's later opinion less weight because "subsequent treatment notes showed
continuing improvement in the claimant's symptomology," indicating that Dr.
Radio's assessment was less relevant as circumstances changed. ALJ Decision,
PAGEID # 64, ECF No. 9.
IV. CONCLUSION
Having performed a de novo review of the R&R, the Court finds there is
insufficient evidence to indicate that the Plaintiff had deficiencies in adaptive
functioning before the age of twenty-two. With the exception of the Magistrate
Case No. 2: 13-cv-300
Page 5 of6
Judge's finding that Listing 12.05(C) requires a diagnosis of mental retardation,
the Court ADOPTS the findings of the R&R. Accordingly, the Court
OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections, ECF No. 17, and AFFIRMS the
Commissioner's decision. The Clerk shall enter judgment for Defendant and
terminate the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MiCHAElH:WATSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case No. 2:13-cv-300
Page 6 of 6
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?