Garland Lott, Jr. v. Carolyn W. Colvin
772 F.3d 546
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Garland Lott, Jr. applied for SSDI and SSI claiming diabetes, hypertension, and a mental disorder; applications were denied by the agency, an ALJ, and the Appeals Council declined review; district court affirmed and Lott appealed.
- Clinical psychologist Dr. Stephen P. Nichols diagnosed psychotic disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and mild mental retardation (now termed intellectual disability) but did not administer an IQ test.
- At the hearing Lott (age 36) reported limited education (10th grade, special education), poor reading and numeracy, juvenile institutionalization and prior violent incidents, and prior work as a cook and laborer.
- The ALJ found severe impairments including mild mental retardation and an unspecified psychotic disorder, but concluded Lott did not meet or equal Listing 12.05 (intellectual disability) and relied on a vocational expert to find other work at Step 5.
- The ALJ did not order standardized IQ testing or make explicit findings about onset of intellectual/adaptive deficits before age 22.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ erred by failing to order IQ testing / further develop the record for Listing 12.05C | Lott: ALJ should have obtained an IQ test because standardized IQ results are essential to adjudicate 12.05C | Commissioner: ALJ’s decision and physician’s diagnosis sufficed; no additional testing required | Reversed and remanded: ALJ erred by not ordering IQ testing and further developing record for 12.05C |
| Whether Lott meets Listing 12.05C (IQ 60–70, additional severe impairment, onset before 22) | Lott: Diagnosis of mild mental retardation and evidence of lifelong adaptive deficits support meeting 12.05C if IQ is in range | Commissioner: ALJ found he did not meet the listing based on claimant’s activities and work history | Unresolved on record; ALJ must obtain IQ test and reassess onset and listing criteria on remand |
| Whether the ALJ’s findings were internally inconsistent with Dr. Nichols’ opinion | Lott: ALJ accepted Dr. Nichols’ mild mental retardation diagnosis at Step 2 but then discounted significantly subaverage functioning at Step 3, improperly substituting ALJ lay judgment for the expert | Commissioner: ALJ relied on claimant’s reported activities and work to deny listing | Court found inconsistencies and held ALJ must resolve them on remand |
| Proper remedy for the procedural error | Lott: Remand for development (IQ testing) and new hearing | Commissioner: Affirmance (implicit) | Court reversed and remanded for IQ testing and a new ALJ hearing to develop the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (listing establishes presumption of disability when met)
- Maresh v. Barnhart, 438 F.3d 897 (IQ presumed stable; pre-22 onset may be inferred from later IQ and developmental history)
- Conley v. Bowen, 781 F.2d 143 (ALJ may err by failing to order consultative exam when necessary to make informed choice)
- Snead v. Barnhart, 360 F.3d 834 (ALJ must develop the record fairly and fully)
- Clark v. Apfel, 141 F.3d 1253 (ALJ not required to accept IQ scores inconsistent with the record)