Chandra Henry v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart , 156 F. App'x 171 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                                                          [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    FILED
    ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    November 25, 2005
    No. 05-13848
    THOMAS K. KAHN
    Non-Argument Calendar              CLERK
    ________________________
    D. C. Docket No. 04-00251-CV-WS-M
    CHANDRA HENRY,
    o.b.o. Lakeisha R. Henry,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    JO ANNE B. BARNHART,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Alabama
    _________________________
    (November 25, 2005)
    Before DUBINA, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant Lakeisha Henry appeals the district court’s order affirming the
    Commissioner's denial of her application for children’s supplemental security
    income benefits under §§ 1602 and 1614(a)(3)(C) of Title XVI of the Social
    Security Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1381a. Henry argues that her impairments, as
    demonstrated by her test results, attendance in special education classes, and an
    Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) diagnosis, meet the
    requirements of section 112.05D of the Listings for mental retardation. Further,
    Henry contends that her impairments functionally equal the Listings, and that the
    Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred by not giving proper weight to Henry’s
    treating psychologist, Dr. Reynolds’s, opinion.
    This court must determine whether the ALJ’s denial of Henry’s application
    for benefits is supported by substantial evidence. See Dyer v. Barnhart, 
    395 F.3d 1206
    , 1210 (11th Cir. 2005). This court also reviews whether the correct legal
    standards were applied. See McRoberts v. Bowen, 
    841 F.2d 1077
    , 1080 (11th Cir.
    1988). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
    accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Falge v. Apfel, 
    150 F.3d 1320
    , 1322
    (11th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). “In other words, substantial evidence is ‘more
    than a mere scintilla.’” 
    Id.
     (citation omitted).
    A person under the age of 18 is disabled, and thus entitled to SSI benefits, if
    the person “has a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, which
    2
    results in marked and severe functional limitations, and which can be expected to
    result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous
    period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(C)(i). Social Security
    regulations provide a three-step sequential evaluation process for determining
    whether a child is disabled. 
    20 C.F.R. § 416.924
    (a). See Wilson v. Apfel, 
    179 F.3d 1276
    , 1277 n.1 (11th Cir. 1999). First, the ALJ must determine whether the child
    is engaged in substantial gainful activity. Wilson, 
    179 F.3d at
    1277 n.1. If yes, the
    child is not disabled, but if no, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a
    severe impairment. 
    Id.
     If not, the child is not disabled. 
    Id.
     If yes, the ALJ then
    considers whether the child has an impairment that meets, medically equals, or
    functionally equals the Listings of Impairments. 
    Id.
     If the child satisfies a Listing,
    the child is conclusively disabled. 
    Id.
    The ALJ found that Henry was not engaged in substantial gainful activity,
    and that her diagnosis of ADHD and her borderline intellectual functioning
    constituted “severe” impairments. Accordingly, the ALJ had to determine whether
    Henry’s impairment meets or is functionally equivalent to section 112.05D of the
    Listings for mental retardation.
    Under section 112.05 of the Listings, mental retardation is “[c]haracterized
    by significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning with deficits in
    3
    adaptive functioning. The required level of severity for this disorder is met when
    the requirements in A, B, C, D, E, or F are satisfied.” 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P,
    App. 1 § 112.05. In relevant part, section D of Listing 112.05 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 limitation of function. . .
    .” 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 § 112.05D.
    “[T]he ALJ is allowed some leeway to evaluate other evidence [other then
    I.Q. test score] when determining the validity of an I.Q. score. . . .” Lowery v.
    Sullivan, 
    979 F.2d 835
    , 837 (11th Cir. 1992). An ALJ should examine whether the
    results of an I.Q. test are consistent with the other medical evidence and the
    claimant’s daily activities and behavior. See Popp v. Heckler, 
    779 F.2d 1497
    ,
    1499-1500 (11th Cir. 1986).
    Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Henry did not meet the
    requirements of section 112.05D of the Listings for mental retardation. Although
    Henry’s testing scores fall within the range to meet the requirements of section
    112.05D, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings that Henry is
    functioning at a higher level. See Popp, 
    779 F.2d at 1499-1500
    . Upon evaluation
    of Henry’s daily school activities, the ALJ found, and the records supports, that
    Henry takes some regular classes. Additionally, one of her teachers reported that
    4
    she needs help but concentrates well on her work, even excelling at times, and she
    obtains low passing grades. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s
    findings that Henry is functioning at a higher level than her I.Q. scores
    demonstrate, and thus she does not meet the requirements of section 112.05D.
    Next, Henry argues that her impairments functionally equal the Listings for
    mental retardation. In determining whether a child’s impairment functionally
    equals a Listing, the regulations require consideration of six “domains,” which are
    “broad areas of functioning intended to capture all of what a child can and cannot
    do.” 
    20 C.F.R. § 416
    .926a(b)(1). These six domains are: (1) acquiring and using
    information; (2) attending and completing tasks; (3) interacting and relating with
    others; (4) moving about and manipulating objects; (5) caring for yourself; and (6)
    health and physical well-being. 
    Id.
     § 416.926a(b)(1)(i)-(vi).
    To satisfy the “functional equivalent” standard, a child claimant must have
    “marked” limitations in two domains or an “extreme” limitation in one domain. Id.
    § 416.926a(d). A “marked” limitation is defined as a limitation that “interferes
    seriously with [the] ability to independently initiate, sustain, or complete
    activities,” and is “more than moderate.” Id. § 416.926a(e)(2)(i). An “extreme”
    limitation is reserved for the “worst limitations” and is defined as a limitation that
    “interferes very seriously with [the] ability to independently initiate, sustain, or
    5
    complete activities,” but “does not necessarily mean a total lack or loss of ability to
    function.” Id. § 416.926a(e)(3)(i).
    Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Henry’s impairments
    are not functionally equal to the requirements of section 112.05D of the Listings
    for mental retardation. Evidence that Henry is able to do her homework, complete
    her class work, and participate in the science fair, supports the ALJ’s finding that
    she does not have a marked or severe limitation in the first domain, acquiring and
    using information. Additionally, an examination of Henry found that her thought
    process was logical. Although Henry may need some assistance with reading, her
    teacher reported that she has a good attention span, is on task in class, and
    completes all of her assignments on time, supporting the ALJ’s finding that she
    does not have a limitation in attending or completing task under the second
    domain. Henry does not have marked or severe limitations in the third domain of
    interacting with others; her teacher noted she gets along with her peers and
    teachers, and Dr. Tocci’s evaluation showed she was cooperative and passive and
    demonstrated normal eye contact. As for the domain of moving about and
    manipulating objects, her motor activity was unremarkable. In the domain of
    caring for herself, Henry’s mother stated that she is able to do so. Finally, in the
    domain of health and physical well-being, her mother reported, and the record
    6
    shows, no physical problems.
    Finally, Henry argues that the ALJ did not give proper weight to Henry’s
    treating psychologist, Dr. Reynolds’s, opinion. “The testimony of a treating
    physician must ordinarily be given substantial or considerable weight unless good
    cause is shown to the contrary. The [ALJ] must specify what weight is given to a
    treating physician's opinion and any reason for giving it no weight, and failure to
    do so is reversible error.” MacGregor v. Bowen, 
    786 F.2d 1050
    , 1053 (11th Cir.
    1986).
    The ALJ did not explicitly state what weight he gave to Dr. Reynolds’s
    opinion. However, the ALJ properly rejected Dr. Reynolds’s interpretation of the
    I.Q. scores, finding that Henry was actually functioning at a higher level. See
    Popp, 
    779 F.2d at 1499-1500
    . Additionally, contrary to Henry’s position, Dr.
    Reynolds did not provide a firm diagnose of mental retardation, but rather gave a
    “provisional” diagnosis of mild retardation. The ALJ did not dispute Dr.
    Reynolds’s opinion that Henry has ADHD, and thus, the ALJ implicitly gave great
    weight to that diagnosis. Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in the weight he gave to
    Dr. Reynolds’s opinion.
    Because we conclude from the record that the ALJ’s findings are supported
    by substantial evidence, we affirm the district court’s order affirming the
    7
    Commissioner’s denial of Henry’s application for SSI benefits.
    AFFIRMED.
    8