Crowder v. Social Security Administration Commissioner, 2:18-cv-02211

Background

Plaintiff Lauran Crowder protectively filed for SSI on September 10, 2015, alleging inability to work due to mental illness; administrative hearings were held in 2016 and 2017.
ALJ found severe impairments: borderline intellectual functioning, specific learning disability, ADHD, major depressive disorder, unspecified anxiety, ODD, and PTSD; RFC: capable of full range of exertional work but limited to unskilled tasks learned by rote, incidental coworker/supervisor contact, no public contact, simple/direct supervision.
Record included conflicting IQ and psychological testing (Wechsler full-scale IQs of 59 and 71), consultative evaluations by Dr. Steve Shry, non‑examining reviewers’ mental RFCs, therapy and outpatient treatment notes showing improvement with treatment, and some inpatient history predating the relevant period.
Treating/clinic checkbox opinions (Dr. Noonan, APRN Metcalf) reported marked incapacity but lacked supporting objective findings; ALJ discounted those opinions for those reasons.
Vocational Expert testimony identified several unskilled jobs the claimant could perform; Appeals Council denied review of additional post‑decision therapy notes as not likely to change the outcome.
Magistrate Judge Wiedemann recommended affirming the Commissioner, finding substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s development of the record, step‑two/three findings, credibility analysis, RFC, and the hypothetical posed to the VE.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ fully and fairly developed the record	Crowder contends ALJ failed to obtain/consider all relevant mental‑health evidence	Commissioner argues record contained sufficient evaluations and treatment records for an informed decision	ALJ satisfied duty; record was reasonably complete
Whether ALJ erred at Steps Two/Three (including Listing 12.05)	Crowder argues impairments meet/equal Listing 12.05 (intellectual disability) given low IQ and adaptive deficits	Commissioner contends ALJ properly considered IQ scores and adaptive functioning and substantial evidence shows Listing not met	ALJ’s step‑two/three findings supported by substantial evidence; Listing not met/equaled
Whether ALJ improperly discounted subjective and third‑party statements	Crowder argues ALJ failed to credit symptom testimony and lay reports about hygiene, attention, and adaptive limits	Commissioner says ALJ properly applied Polaski factors, noted inconsistencies and improvement with treatment, and used corroborating lay reports when appropriate	ALJ’s credibility determination and treatment of third‑party statements upheld
Whether RFC and VE hypothetical were supported by the record	Crowder asserts RFC unduly relied on non‑examining reviewers and omitted limiting effects of marked limitations	Commissioner argues ALJ reasonably weighed consultative exams, reviewers, and treatment notes; RFC captures supported limitations and VE hypothetical was proper	RFC and VE hypothetical supported by substantial evidence; jobs identified exist nationally

Key Cases Cited

Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576 (8th Cir. 2002) (substantial‑evidence standard for judicial review)
Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211 (8th Cir. 2001) (claimant’s burden to prove disability and evaluation framework)
Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990) (must meet all listing criteria; equivalence requires medical findings)
Johnson v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 1067 (8th Cir. 2004) (IQ scores may be discredited when inconsistent with record)
Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984) (factors for evaluating claimant’s subjective complaints)
Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2005) (ALJ may discount a treating opinion inconsistent with other evidence)
Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 2001) (RFC is a medical question requiring evidentiary support)
Pickney v. Chater, 96 F.3d 294 (8th Cir. 1996) (vocational expert testimony based on proper hypothetical constitutes substantial evidence)