Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 10-2226
SYLVIA JACKSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, at Office
(Administrative Law Judges),
of
Disability
Adjudication
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:09-cv-00193-RJC-DCK)
Argued:
December 6, 2011
Decided:
wrote
the
2004,
Sylvia
Jackson
filed
of
depression
mental
and
disorder
physical
and
an
application
impairments,
diminished
for
including
intellectual
major
functioning.
denied her claim, and the Appeals Council likewise denied her
request
for
review.
Having
exhausted
her
administrative
affirming
reasons
that
the
follow,
we
find
that
final
decision.
Jackson
is
For
entitled
the
to
I.
Judicial review of the commissioners decision is governed
by 42 U.S.C. 405(g).
(4th
Cir.
2005)
(per
curiam).
When
reviewing
denial
of
A finding is
As we have
less
Apfel,
than
270
evidence
preponderance,
F.3d
allows
171,
176
reasonable
of
(4th
the
Cir.
minds
to
evidence.
2001).
differ
If
as
Mastro
v.
conflicting
to
whether
II.
The
commissioner
disability
claims.
416.920(a)(4).
uses
See
five-step
20
C.F.R.
process
to
evaluate
404.1520(a)(4),
activity;
(2)
has
severe
impairment;
(3)
has
an
See 20 C.F.R.
in
the
national
economy
that
the
claimant
can
perform
determination
of
disability
can
be
made
at
any
Id.
If
step,
the
See 20 C.F.R.
404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4).
At
steps
and
2,
the
ALJ
found
that
Jackson
had
not
for
SSI
and
that
impairments,
including
functioning.
depression
she
suffered
from
and
diminished
severe
intellectual
Finally, at
steps 4 and 5, the ALJ found that Jackson could return to her
past work as a housekeeper and that other jobs existed in the
national
economy
that
she
could
perform.
Based
on
these
she
was
not
disabled
within
Security Act.
the
meaning
of
the
Social
The
only
issue
on
appeal
is
whether
the
ALJ
properly
adaptive
functioning
developmental
period;
initially
i.e.,
the
manifested
evidence
demonstrates
satisfaction
identified
as
of
one
Requirements
of
during
the
or
20 C.F.R. Pt.
A-D.
additional
At
issue
in
requirements
this
case
was
listed
in
Appendix
1,
including
Listing
12.05C.
Jackson argues that the ALJ erred with regard to this finding by
(1)
discrediting
Jacksons
IQ
scores
without
sufficient
III.
The record contains undisputed evidence that Jacksons IQ
scores are within the 60 to 70 range as required for the first
prong of Listing 12.05C.
psychological
evaluation.
The
examiner,
Mr.
Nunez,
C.F.R.
determined
Pt.
404,
that
Subpt.
Jackson
P.,
Appx
suffers
1,
from
12.05.
severe
The
impairments
ALJ
of
Moreover, the
with
disorder,
and
psychotic
(4)
symptoms,
personality
(2)
psychosis,
disorder.
6
The
(3)
record
anxiety
is
also
filled
with
evidence
limitations
of
including
activities,
and
Jacksons
marked
difficulties
significant,
restriction
in
of
maintaining
work-related
daily-living
social
function,
we
are
left
to
determine
whether
substantial
As
evidence
such
as
communication,
self-care,
home
living,
functional
academic
skills,
work,
leisure,
health,
skills
and
communication,
self-care,
evaluated
as
within
the
mildly
mentally
retarded
range
of
intellectual functioning.
In this case, the ALJ found no evidence of deficits in
Jacksons adaptive functioning on the grounds that there was no
documentation to support her testimony that she was in special
education classes and that it found her testimony on the matter
to
be
incredible.
supported
by
Jackson
substantial
argues
evidence
that
in
this
the
finding
record
is
and
not
that
the
ALJ
proceeding,
Jacksons
representative
District
that
Jackson
was
identified
as
What is
does
not
provide
basis
for
changing
the
denying
credibility
Jacksons
of
claim,
Jacksons
they
testimony.
also
reinforced
Moreover,
the
information
of
Listing
suffered
12.05C
--
significantly
functioning
with
the
question
subaverage
deficits
in
of
whether
general
adaptive
Jackson
intellectual
behavior
initially
substantial
evidence
supports
the
We cannot say
finding
that
Jackson
to
findings
and
the
Appeals
underlying
Council
contradicts
reasoning,
and
the
both
the
Appeals
ALJs
Council
In
this
situation,
our
proper
disposition
is
to
upon
showing
of
new
material
405(g).
evidence.
42
U.S.C.
IV.
For the reasons above, we remand the case for consideration
of the new and material evidence.
REMANDED
10