USCA11 Case: 20-13559 Date Filed: 03/31/2021 Page: 1 of 9
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-13559
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:19-cv-01331-TJC-JBT
CRYSTAL PINCKNEY,
Individual,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Social Security Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(March 31, 2021)
Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-13559 Date Filed: 03/31/2021 Page: 2 of 9
Crystal Pinckney appeals the district court’s order affirming the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s denial of her application for
supplemental security income (SSI) benefits under
42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and
1383(c). She argues that substantial evidence does not support the Administrative
Law Judge’s (ALJ) conclusion that she did not meet 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P,
app. 1, § 12.05(B) (Listing 12.05(B)) and thus was not conclusively presumed
disabled because of her intellectual disorder at step three of the five-part sequential
evaluation process. Specifically, she contests the ALJ’s conclusions that she had a
full-scale or comparable intelligence quotient (IQ) above 70 and that she did not
exhibit significant deficits in adaptive functioning.
I.
“In Social Security appeals, we review de novo the legal principles upon
which the Commissioner’s decision is based.” Moore v. Barnhart,
405 F.3d 1208,
1211 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). The resulting decision, however, is reviewed
only to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence.
Id. Substantial
evidence is “more than a mere scintilla.” Biestek v. Berryhill,
139 S. Ct. 1148,
1154 (2019). “It means—and means only—such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
Id. (internal quotation
marks omitted). We will not “decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or
substitute our judgment” for that of the Commissioner’s. Winschel v. Comm’r of
2
USCA11 Case: 20-13559 Date Filed: 03/31/2021 Page: 3 of 9
Soc. Sec.,
631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011). Thus, “[e]ven if the evidence
preponderates against the Commissioner’s findings, we must affirm if the decision
reached is supported by substantial evidence.” Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
363 F.3d 1155, 1158–59 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam).
The individual seeking social security disability benefits bears the burden of
proving that she is disabled. Moore,
405 F.3d at 1211. In determining whether a
claimant has met that burden, the ALJ will consider medical opinions from
acceptable medical sources, including licensed physicians and licensed
psychologists.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1502(a), 404.1527(b). “[T]he ALJ must state
with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons
therefor.” Winschel,
631 F.3d at 1179.
II.
The Social Security Regulations set forth a five-step sequential evaluation
process to determine whether a claimant is disabled.
20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).
The ALJ must determine: (1) whether the claimant is engaged in substantial
gainful activity; (2) if not, whether she has a medically severe impairment or
combination of impairments; (3) if so, whether that impairment, or combination of
impairments, meets or equals the listings in the regulations; (4) if not, whether she
can perform her past relevant work; and (5) if not, whether, based on her age,
education, and work experience, she can perform other work found in the national
3
USCA11 Case: 20-13559 Date Filed: 03/31/2021 Page: 4 of 9
economy.
Id. If the ALJ can conclusively ascertain that a claimant is disabled or
not disabled at a step, the determination is made, and the evaluation process does
not proceed to the next step.
Id.
Pinckney’s appeal focuses on step three, which requires consideration of the
medical severity of a claimant’s impairments.
Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If a
claimant is found to “have an impairment(s) that meets or equals one of [the]
listings in appendix 1 of this subpart and meets the duration requirement,” she will
be found disabled. Id.; see also Crayton v. Callahan,
120 F.3d 1217, 1219 (11th
Cir. 1997) (“If the claimant’s condition meets or equals the level of severity of a
listed impairment, the claimant at this point is conclusively presumed to be
disabled based on his or her medical condition.”)
Listing 12.05 in appendix 1 pertains to intellectual disorders and may be
satisfied, in relevant part, by meeting the three criteria set forth in paragraph B of
that listing. 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, § 12.05(B). First, a claimant must
demonstrate significantly subaverage intellectual functioning evidenced by, in
relevant part, a “full scale (or comparable) IQ score of 70 or below on an
individually administered standardized test of general intelligence.” Id.
§ 12.05(B)(1)(a). Second, the claimant must demonstrate “[s]ignificant deficits in
adaptive functioning currently manifested by extreme limitation of one, or marked
limitation of two, of the following areas of mental functioning:” (1) understanding,
4
USCA11 Case: 20-13559 Date Filed: 03/31/2021 Page: 5 of 9
remembering, or applying information; (2) interacting with others; (3)
concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace; or (4) adapting or managing oneself.
Id. § 12.05(B)(2). Finally, the evidence about a claimant’s intellectual and
adaptive functioning and history must support a conclusion that the disorder began
prior to age 22. Id. § 12.05(B)(3).
The Social Security Regulations elaborate the areas of mental functioning
relevant to the adaptive functioning determination as follows. Id. § 12.00(E).
Understanding, remembering, or applying information refers to the claimant’s
abilities to learn, recall, and use information to perform work activities, e.g.,
understanding and learning terms, instructions, and procedures; following one- or
two-step oral instructions to carry out a task; and describing work activity to
someone else. Id. Interacting with others refers to the claimant’s abilities to relate
to and work with supervisors, co-workers, and the public, e.g., cooperating with
others, asking for help when needed, initiating or sustaining conversation, and
understanding and responding to social cues. Id. Concentrating, persisting, or
maintaining pace refers to the claimant’s abilities to focus attention on work
activities and stay on task at a sustained rate, e.g., initiating and performing a task,
completing tasks in a timely manner, and sustaining an ordinary routine and
regular attendance at work. Id. Finally, adapting or managing oneself refers to the
claimant’s abilities to regulate emotions, control behavior, and maintain well-being
5
USCA11 Case: 20-13559 Date Filed: 03/31/2021 Page: 6 of 9
in a work setting, e.g., responding to demands, making plans independently of
others, and maintaining personal hygiene and attire appropriate to a work setting.
Id.
The effects of a claimant’s mental disorder, and the degree of a claimant’s
limitations, are evaluated “based on a five-point rating scale consisting of none,
mild, moderate, marked, and extreme limitation.” Id. § 12.00(F)(2). To satisfy the
criteria under paragraph B of Listing 12.05, a claimant’s “mental disorder must
result in extreme limitation of one, or marked limitation of two,” areas of mental
functioning used for evaluating adaptive functioning. Id.
As relevant here, a moderate limitation means that the claimant’s
“functioning in th[e] area independently, appropriately, effectively, and on a
sustained basis is fair.” Id. § 12.00(F)(2)(c). A marked limitation means that the
claimant’s “functioning in th[e] area independently, appropriately, effectively, and
on a sustained basis is seriously limited.” Id. § 12.00(F)(2)(d). Finally, an extreme
limitation means that the claimant is “not able to function in this area
independently, appropriately, effectively, and on a sustained basis.”
Id. § 12.00(F)(2)(e).
III.
Regardless of whether Pinckney satisfied Listing 12.05(B)’s IQ requirement,
her claim fails because substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that she
6
USCA11 Case: 20-13559 Date Filed: 03/31/2021 Page: 7 of 9
did not exhibit significant deficits in adaptive functioning, i.e., that she did not
exhibit marked or extreme limitations in any of the relevant categories of mental
functioning. See id. § 12.05(B). The evidence—particularly Pinckney’s medical
records—supports a finding that she exhibited only moderate limitations in
understanding, remembering, or applying information. See id. § 12.00(E), (F).
Doctors noted that Pinckney had grossly intact memory and a coherent, logical,
well-organized, linear, and goal-directed thought process. Doctors also noted that
she had good judgment and comprehension and an ability to think abstractly.
Further, she also reported learning different fabrics and shades of color from a
fashion design class she attended while incarcerated in state prison, and she was
noted as being able to correctly complete simple math problems.
The evidence also supports a finding that Pinckney had only moderate
limitations in interacting with others. See id. She was able to attend a fashion
design class, participated in group therapy, was described by examiners as
cooperative, and was noted to have interacted with others appropriately while
hospitalized.
The evidence further supports a finding that Pinckney had only moderate
limitations in concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace. See id. Pinckney
graduated high school with a special diploma and reported that she would finish
what she started. She was also able to perform basic acts related to self-care
7
USCA11 Case: 20-13559 Date Filed: 03/31/2021 Page: 8 of 9
independently, and would go to school, do homework, and perform basic house
chores. She was noted by examiners as alert and attentive, with one examiner
noting that she had good concentration and an ability to focus on daily tasks. She
also reported that she could listen to music and watch television.
Finally, the evidence supports a finding that Pinckney had only moderate
limitations in her ability to adapt or manage herself. See id. Pinckney was
consistently noted as being either appropriately- or well-groomed and hygienic,
and examiners noted that her attitude and behavior were proper and normal.
Notably, Pinckney exhibited normal adaptive behavior and no impairment in
adaptive functioning while incarcerated. And, at the time of her most recent
examination, the examiner noted that she exhibited good behavioral control. In
light of these facts, we cannot say that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by
substantive evidence in the record. See Winschel,
631 F.3d at 1178.
Therefore, because more than a mere scintilla of evidence supports the
ALJ’s conclusion that Pinckney did not demonstrate significant deficits in adaptive
functioning, Pinckney has not met her burden of proving she was conclusively
disabled under Listing 12.05(B).1 See Moore,
405 F.3d at 1211; Biestek,
139 S. Ct.
at 1154. We accordingly affirm the denial of benefits.
1
To support her contention that she demonstrated significant deficits in adaptive functioning,
Pinckney relies heavily on the opinion of consultative evaluators Drs. Austin and Burgos, who
opined after one examination in January 2013 that her full-scale IQ was 47, that she would need
8
USCA11 Case: 20-13559 Date Filed: 03/31/2021 Page: 9 of 9
AFFIRMED.
assistance managing her own funds, and that she exhibited impaired social functioning and
significantly impaired functional abilities. However, the record supports the ALJ’s decision to
give their opinion little weight because it was vague and outdated, and they were one-time
examiners whose opinions were not entitled to controlling deference. See Winschel,
631 F.3d at
1179; Schink v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
935 F.3d 1245, 1260 (11th Cir. 2019) (per curiam)
(explaining that the opinions of one-time examiners are not entitled to deference because they are
not considered “treating physicians”).
9
