Derrick L. Harris v. Commissioner of Social Security , 505 F. App'x 874 ( 2013 )

Case: 12-12729 Date Filed: 01/30/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-12729
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:11-cv-00040-JRK
DERRICK L. HARRIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(January 30, 2013)
Before HULL, JORDAN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-12729 Date Filed: 01/30/2013 Page: 2 of 4
Derrick L. Harris appeals the district court’s order affirming the
Commissioner’s denial of his application for Supplemental Security Insurance
(SSI) benefits. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded Harris did not
meet the requirements of Listing 12.05 for mental retardation based on his level of
adaptive functioning and his second set of IQ test scores. The ALJ determined
Harris functioned at an intellectual level that was higher than a mentally retarded
individual, and found he was not disabled for purposes of eligibility for benefits
under the Social Security Act. After review, we affirm.1
Eligibility for disability insurance benefits requires that the claimant is
under a disability. 42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(1)(E). To determine whether a claimant is
disabled, the Social Security Administration (SSA) applies a 5-step sequential
evaluation. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). The third step requires an analysis of
whether the claimant has such an impairment that meets or equals a Listing and
meets the duration requirements. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). If the claimant
satisfies one of the listed impairments under the third step, then he is considered
disabled, and analysis does not continue on to the latter considerations. McDaniel
1
In a Social Security appeal, we must determine whether the ALJ’s decision is supported
by substantial evidence and based upon proper legal standards. See Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011). So long as the decision is supported by substantial
evidence, we must defer to the ALJ’s decision even if the evidence may preponderate against it.
See Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158–59 (11th Cir. 2004).
2
Case: 12-12729 Date Filed: 01/30/2013 Page: 3 of 4
v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026, 1030 (11th Cir. 1986). The claimant has the burden of
proving his impairment meets or equals a listed impairment. Barron v. Sullivan,
924 F.2d 227, 229 (11th Cir. 1991).
To be considered for disability benefits under Listing 12.05, 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 valid IQ score need not be conclusive of mental retardation where the IQ
score is inconsistent with the other evidence regarding the claimant’s daily
activities and behavior. See Lowery v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir.
1992).
Harris has not met his burden of proving he satisfies the requirements of
Listing 12.05. See Barron, 924 F.2d at 119. While Harris argues his IQ scores
satisfied Listing 12.05, the ALJ was permitted to rely on evidence of his adaptive
skills to conclude he was not mentally retarded. See Lowery, 979 F.2d at 837.
Evidence shows that both psychologists who administered the WAIS-III
concluded Harris’s intellectual ability fell at, or above, the borderline range.
Moreover, Harris had worked as a prep cook, dishwasher, food server, furniture
deliverer, and truck driver, and he did not have any documented work problems
3
Case: 12-12729 Date Filed: 01/30/2013 Page: 4 of 4
attributed to his mental impairment. Thus, substantial evidence supports the
ALJ’s finding that Harris’s adaptive skills demonstrated he was not mentally
retarded in spite of a qualifying IQ score. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4