Case: 17-12362 Date Filed: 02/23/2018 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-12362
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:15-cv-01793-JHE
WESLEY DOUGLAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, COMMISSIONER,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(February 23, 2018)
Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 17-12362 Date Filed: 02/23/2018 Page: 2 of 6
PER CURIAM:
Wesley Douglas (“Claimant”) appeals the district court’s order affirming the
Social Security Commissioner’s denial of his application for supplemental security
income (“SSI”), pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3). On appeal, Claimant
challenges the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ’s”) determination that
Claimant’s impairments did not meet Listing 12.05(B) or (C). No reversible error
has been shown; we affirm.
Our review of the Commissioner’s decision is limited to whether substantial
evidence supports the decision and whether the correct legal standards were
applied. Wilson v. Barnhart,
284 F.3d 1219, 1221 (11th Cir. 2002). “Substantial
evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable
person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Crawford v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec.,
363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir. 2004). “If the Commissioner’s decision
is supported by substantial evidence, this Court must affirm, even if the proof
preponderates against it.” Dyer v. Barnhart,
395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005).
Under this limited standard of review, we may not make fact-findings, re-weigh
the evidence, or substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ. Moore v. Barnhart,
405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005). We review de novo the district court’s
2
Case: 17-12362 Date Filed: 02/23/2018 Page: 3 of 6
determination about whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision.
Wilson,
284 F.3d at 1221.
A person who applies for SSI benefits must first prove that he is disabled.
See
20 C.F.R. § 416.912(a). A claimant is considered disabled “if he is unable to
engage in substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable
physical or mental impairment” which is either expected to result in death or which
has lasted or is expected to last for at least 12 months. 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A).
The claimant bears the burden of proving his disability and must produce evidence
supporting his claim. See Ellison v. Barnhart,
355 F.3d 1272, 1276 (11th Cir.
2003).
The ALJ applied correctly the five-step evaluation process set forth in
20
C.F.R. § 416.920(a), in determining that Claimant was not disabled. In pertinent
part, the ALJ found that none of Claimant’s impairments met or equaled a Listed
Impairment, including for intellectual disability (“Listing 12.05”).
For an impairment to meet Listing 12.05, it must satisfy both (1) the
diagnostic description for intellectual disability as set forth in the listing’s
introductory paragraph and (2) one of four additional sets of criteria (listed in
subparagraphs (A) through (D)). See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, §§ 12.00,
12.05 (2014); see also
20 C.F.R. § 416.925.
3
Case: 17-12362 Date Filed: 02/23/2018 Page: 4 of 6
The introductory paragraph to Listing 12.05 defines intellectual disability as
requiring (1) significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning, (2) with
deficits in adaptive functioning, (3) that manifested before age 22. 20 C.F.R. pt.
404, subpt. P, app. 1, § 12.05. The term “adaptive functioning” refers to the
claimant’s “progress in acquiring mental, academic, social and personal skills as
compared with other unimpaired individuals of his/her same age.” See SOC. SEC.
ADMIN., PROGRAM OPERATIONS MANUAL SYSTEM (POMS), DI 24515.056.D.2,
http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0424515056; see also AM. PSYCHIATRIC ASS’N,
DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS, 40 (4th ed. 1994)
(defining “adaptive functioning” as referring “to how effectively individuals cope
with common life demands and how well they meet the standards of personal
independence expected of someone in their particular age group, sociocultural
background, and community setting.”). Examples of “adaptive activities” that may
be considered in assessing a claimant’s functional limitations include “cleaning,
shopping, cooking, taking public transportation, paying bills, maintaining a
residence, [and] caring appropriately for . . . grooming and hygiene.” Id. §
12.00(C)(1).
Under the applicable version of Listing 12.05(B), a claimant meets the
criteria for presumptive disability when he presents a verbal, performance, or full
scale IQ score at or below 59. Id. § 12.05(B). A claimant may also demonstrate
4
Case: 17-12362 Date Filed: 02/23/2018 Page: 5 of 6
the requisite level of severity by presenting a valid verbal, performance, or full
scale IQ score of 60 through 70 on top of some other physical or mental
impairment that imposes an additional and significant work-related limitation of
function. Id. § 12.05(C).
Although standardized intelligence tests can assist in verifying the presence
of intellectual disability, they are only part of the overall assessment and should be
considered in conjunction with developmental history and the degree of functional
limitations. Id. § 12.00(D)(6)(a). We have recognized that an IQ score is
inconclusive evidence of intellectual disability when it is inconsistent with other
evidence of the claimant’s daily activities and behavior. Lowery v. Sullivan,
979
F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1992).
In this case, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that
Claimant failed to satisfy the criteria of Listing 12.05. Although Claimant had a
full scale IQ score of 56, his score was inconsistent with other record evidence
about Claimant’s activities of daily living and behavior. For example, Claimant
testified that he worked on cars since he was 12 years old and worked as an auto
mechanic to support himself before sustaining injuries in a motorcycle accident.
Claimant also reported that he shopped for groceries, kept his yard clean,
sometimes attended church, enjoyed reading the Bible and going to see movies,
and groomed and dressed himself independently. An evaluating psychologist
5
Case: 17-12362 Date Filed: 02/23/2018 Page: 6 of 6
reported that Claimant was able to answer a series of simple math problems and
had the basic skills to manage funds. Because Claimant’s low IQ score was
inconsistent with other evidence of his activities and behavior, his IQ score was not
conclusive evidence of intellectual disability. See Lowery,
979 F.2d at 837. In
addition, substantial evidence supports the determination that Claimant
demonstrated insufficient deficits in adaptive functioning for purposes of satisfying
the diagnostic criteria of Listing 12.05.
We reject Claimant’s contention that the ALJ gave insufficient weight to Dr.
Wilson’s psychological examination and IQ test results. First, an ALJ need not
defer to the opinion of a doctor who -- like Dr. Wilson -- conducts a single
examination. See McSwain v. Bowen,
814 F.2d 617, 619 (11th Cir. 1987).
Moreover, “the ALJ is free to reject the opinion of any physician when the
evidence supports a contrary conclusion.” Sryock v. Heckler,
764 F.2d 834, 835
(11th Cir. 1985). Because Dr. Wilson’s opinion about Claimant’s intellectual
capacity was inconsistent with other evidence in the record, the ALJ committed no
error in deciding to afford little weight to Dr. Wilson’s opinion.
Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Claimant’s
impairments did not meet Listing 12.05; we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
6
