Case: 17-13473 Date Filed: 08/03/2018 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-13473
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-00259-WTH-CAS
MONIQUE NICOLE DAMES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(August 3, 2018)
Before WILSON, MARTIN and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-13473 Date Filed: 08/03/2018 Page: 2 of 6
Monique Dames appeals the district court’s order affirming the decision of
an administrative law judge to terminate her supplemental security income
benefits, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 423(f). In 2006, the Social Security
Administration found Dames to be disabled because she met the criteria for an
affective or mood disorder under Listing 12.04(C). In this case, the ALJ
determined Dames had medically improved and was no longer disabled as of
January 2011. Dames argues the ALJ erred in finding her no longer disabled
because she presently meets the amended version of Listing 12.05(B), which
addresses intellectual disability. After careful review, we affirm.
I.
“When, as in this case, the ALJ denies benefits and the [Appeals Council]
denies review, we review the ALJ’s decision as the Commissioner’s final
decision.” Doughty v. Apfel,
245 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001). The ALJ’s
legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Lewis v. Barnhart,
285 F.3d 1329, 1330
(11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). The ALJ’s factual findings will not be disturbed so
long as they are “supported by substantial evidence.” Lewis v. Callahan,
125 F.3d
1436, 1439–40 (11th Cir. 1997). “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and
is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.”
Id. at 1440.
2
Case: 17-13473 Date Filed: 08/03/2018 Page: 3 of 6
II.
An ALJ may terminate a claimant’s benefits upon finding there has been
medical improvement in the claimant’s impairments related to the claimant’s
ability to work and the claimant “is now able to engage in substantial gainful
activity.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(f)(1). Medical improvement is defined as “any
decrease in the medical severity of impairment(s) present at the time of the most
recent favorable medical decision that you were disabled.” 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1594(c)(1). This determination must be based on medical evidence showing
an improvement in the symptoms, signs, or laboratory findings associated with the
impairments. 1
Id.
In this appeal, Dames argues there is no substantial evidence of medical
improvement in her conditions. However, Dames does not challenge the
conclusion that she experienced medical improvement sufficient to no longer
qualify as disabled under Listing 12.04(C). Instead, as a result of IQ tests
1
The ALJ conducts a multi-step evaluation to determine whether disability benefits
should be terminated. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1594(f). Dames’s challenge is to the ALJ’s finding
on the second step, which addresses whether the claimant has an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 of 20 C.F.R. § 404 subpart
P. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1594(f)(2). To meet the criteria for a condition in the Listing of
Impairments, a claimant must be diagnosed with a condition included in the Listings, and she
must provide medical reports documenting the specific criteria of the condition, including the
duration of the condition. Wilson v. Barnhart,
284 F.3d 1219, 1224 (11th Cir. 2002) (per
curiam). For a condition to equal a listing, “the medical findings must be at least equal in
severity and duration to the listed findings.”
Id. (quotation omitted). When the claimant has
multiple impairments and, standing alone, none meet the criteria for a listed impairment, the
Commissioner will review all of a claimant’s impairments to determine whether together they
medically equal a listed impairment.
Id.
3
Case: 17-13473 Date Filed: 08/03/2018 Page: 4 of 6
performed in 2006, she argues she qualifies under Listing 12.05(B), as amended in
2017, and that there has been no medical improvement related to that Listing.
Under the version of Listing 12.05 in effect at the time of the ALJ’s decision
to terminate Dames’s benefits, “a claimant must at least (1) have significantly
subaverage general intellectual functioning; (2) have deficits in adaptive behavior;
and (3) have manifested deficits in adaptive behavior before age 22.” Crayton v.
Callahan,
120 F.3d 1217, 1219 (11th Cir. 1997). A claimant must also meet one of
the four sets of criteria found in 12.05(A), (B), (C), and (D) to show her
impairments are severe enough to meet or equal Listing 12.05. See 20 C.F.R. pt.
404, subpt. P, app. 1, 12.05 (effective May 18, 2015).
Amended Listing 12.05 simplified the four sets of criteria into two alternate
criteria in subsections 12.05(A) and (B). 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, 12.05.
As relevant here, the amendment simplified the IQ score requirement to a full-scale
score of 70 or less or a full-scale score of 71–75 accompanied by a verbal or
performance IQ score of 70 or below.
Id. at 12.05(B). Dames argues she meets
the intellectual disability requirements of the amended version of Listing 12.05(B)
based on IQ tests performed in 2006 that found she had a full-scale score of 62, a
verbal score of 70, and a performance score of 57.
This Court’s review is limited to determining whether the ALJ’s decision is
supported by substantial evidence and correctly applied the law. Barnhart, 285
4
Case: 17-13473 Date Filed: 08/03/2018 Page: 5
of 6
F.3d at 1330. That of course requires us to decide whether remand is required
because of a change in the law after the ALJ’s decision. In this case, Dames
argues under a post-decision amendment to Listing 12.05, so we must decide
whether the amended version applies on review in federal court. When Listing
12.05 was amended, the Social Security Administration stated the amended rules
“will apply . . . to new applications filed on or after the effective date of the rules,
and to claims that are pending on or after the effective date.” Revised Medical
Criteria for Evaluating Mental Disorders, 81 Fed. Reg. 66,137, 66,138 (Sept. 26,
2016). The regulation explained in more detail how this would work for claims
before the Administration and for claims before the courts. For claims before the
Administration, the amended rules would apply “after their effective date, in any
case in which [the Commissioner] make[s] a determination or decision.”
Id. at
66,138 n.1. As for claims before courts, the Administration “expect[ed] that
Federal courts will review [its] final decisions using the rules that were in effect at
the time [the Commissioner] issued the decisions.” 2
Id. Given the regulation’s
own terms of applicability, we decline to remand for evaluation of Dames’s
disability under the amended Listing 12.05.
2
Upon receiving a case on remand, the Commissioner would apply the amended rules in
its decisions. Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Mental Disorders, 81 Fed. Reg. at 66,138
n.1.
5
Case: 17-13473 Date Filed: 08/03/2018 Page: 6 of 6
The pleadings are not clear about whether Dames challenges any other
aspect of the ALJ’s and the district court’s decisions. Assuming she challenges the
ALJ’s finding that her medical improvement meant she no longer met or medically
equaled any listed impairment, this decision was supported by substantial
evidence. The record contained evidence showing Dames was only mildly
restricted in her daily life; had only moderate difficulties in social functioning; and
had only moderate difficulties with regard to concentration, persistence, or pace.
AFFIRMED.
6
