Case: 12-11785 Date Filed: 01/03/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-11785
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:11-cv-00102-LGW-JEG
OLIVIA MONROE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(January 3, 2013)
Before BARKETT, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Olivia Monroe, through counsel, appeals the district court’s order affirming
the Commissioner of Social Security’s (the “Commissioner”) denial of her
application for supplemental security income. On appeal, Monroe argues that
Case: 12-11785 Date Filed: 01/03/2013 Page: 2 of 4
substantial evidence did not support the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”)
determination that Monroe did not meet the criteria of Listing 12.05(C), which
concerns mental retardation and would support her claim.
We review a Commissioner’s decision to determine whether it is supported
by substantial evidence and whether the proper legal standards were applied.
Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir. 2004). The
Social Security Regulations outline a five-step sequential process used to
determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). Under the
first step, the claimant has the burden to show that she is not currently engaged in
substantial gainful activity. Id. § 404.1520(b). Monroe meets this requirement.
Next, she must show that she has a severe impairment. Id. § 404.1520(c). Monroe
has severe impairments, however, she must still then either show that the
impairment meets or equals the criteria contained in one of the Listings of
Impairments. Id. § 404.1520(d), or show that the impairment prevents her from
performing her past relevant work. Id. § 404.1520(e), (f). If she shows that the
impairment meets or equals the criteria contained in one of the Listings of
Impairments, the inquiry ends and she is entitled to benefits. If her impairment
does not meet the Listing criteria, she can still recover benefits if she is able to
show that she cannot perform her past relevant work.
2
Case: 12-11785 Date Filed: 01/03/2013 Page: 3 of 4
In this case, we conclude that her impairment meets the Listing of
Impairments for mental retardation. Dr. Muller, an examining physician,
determined that on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 3rd Edition
(“WAIS-III”), Monroe “obtained a Full Scale IQ of 51, which suggests she is
currently functioning in the Mild Range of Mental Retardation.” (Id.). Dr. Muller
noted that Monroe scored a Verbal IQ of 59, a Performance IQ of 51, and a Full
Scale IQ of 51, all of which were in the mild range of mental retardation. (Id.
at 321). Dr. Muller summarized that Monroe was functioning in the mild range of
mental retardation, showed academic achievement at approximately the third grade
level, and exhibited symptoms of depression. (Id.). Dr. Muller stated that Monroe
was “functionally as well as intellectually retarded. Ms. Monroe dropped out [of]
special education classes in the eighth grade and then depended on others for
support in basic living ever since.” (Id.).
Listing 12.05 “contains an introductory paragraph with the diagnostic
description for mental retardation.” 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1
§ 12.00(A). The impairment must satisfy the diagnostic description in the
introductory paragraph and any one of the four sets of criteria described in section
12.05 to meet the Listing’s requirements. Id.
Listing 12.05, “Mental retardation,” provides,
Mental retardation refers to significantly subaverage general
intellectual functioning with deficits in adaptive functioning initially
3
Case: 12-11785 Date Filed: 01/03/2013 Page: 4 of 4
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.
20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 § 12.05. Listing 12.05(C) requires 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.” Id. § 12.05(C). “Generally, a claimant meets the criteria for
presumptive disability under section 12.05(C) when the claimant presents a valid
I.Q. score of 60 to 70 inclusive, and evidence of an additional mental or physical
impairment that has more than ‘minimal effect’ on the claimant’s ability to
perform basic work activities.” Lowery v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir.
1992). We have held that “a claimant need not present evidence that she
manifested deficits in adaptive functioning prior to the age twenty-two, when she
presented evidence of low IQ test results after the age of twenty-two.” Hodges v.
Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1265, 1266 (11th Cir. 2001).
On this record, we find that because she met the criteria of Listing 12.05(C),
her application for supplemental security income, should have been granted.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
4