Gary Phillips v. Carolyn W. Colvin
721 F.3d 623
8th Cir.2013Background
- Phillips is an SSA claimant who previously received SSI benefits based on intellectual functioning within the mental retardation range.
- In 1995 Phillips had IQ scores in the 50s–60s, with a full-scale IQ of 56; 2006 testing showed verbal 66, performance 69, full-scale 64.
- Phillips turned 18 in August 2007, triggering SSA redetermination of disability status; a 2008 consultative evaluation suggested higher functioning.
- An ALJ requested further testing; 2010 evaluations by Dr. Hobby showed IQ 71 verbal, 81 performance, 74 full-scale, diagnosing ADHD, learning disorder, and borderline intellectual functioning.
- The ALJ concluded Phillips did not meet Listing 12.05C, found a residual functional capacity for simple work, and determined disability ended February 1, 2008; the Appeals Council denied review; Phillips challenged in district court, which affirmed.
- The Eighth Circuit affirms, reviewing for substantial evidence and de novo in certain respects, and addresses Listing 12.05C and medical equivalence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Phillips meet the IQ element of Listing 12.05C (60–70) | Phillips argues 2006 scores (66, 69, 64) fall in 60–70 and should control. | ALJ properly credited 2010 scores as current and more accurate; 2006 score not controlling. | Not met; substantial evidence supports using 2010 IQ as the current indicator and the first element is not satisfied. |
| Is Phillips medically equal to Listing 12.05C based on IQ plus ADHD/other impairments | Combination of low IQ with ADHD constitutes medical equivalence under Shontos and POMS guidance. | ADHD is non-severe with medication; no significant work-related limitation; no medical equivalence. | Not medically equal; substantial evidence supports non-equivalence. |
| Was there proper consideration of conflicting IQ evidence between 2006 and 2010 | Conflict shows a change in intellectual functioning; Muncy requires addressing the discrepancy. | ALJ explained why 2010 results are more accurate given professional status and daily functioning. | Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination; no reversible error in weighing IQ evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- McNamara v. Astrue, 590 F.3d 607 (8th Cir. 2010) (discusses Listing 12.05C elements and medical equivalence)
- Muncy v. Apfel, 247 F.3d 728 (8th Cir. 2001) (addresses IQ stability and need to resolve large IQ discrepancies)
- Shontos v. Barnhart, 328 F.3d 418 (8th Cir. 2003) (medical equivalence framework for multiple impairments; reliance on treating sources)
- Davidson v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard for reviewing substantial evidence in disability determinations)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1981) (duty to resolve conflicts in the evidence; substantial evidence standard)
- Nelson v. Sullivan, 946 F.2d 1314 (8th Cir. 1991) (validates analysis of improvement and disability cessation under SSI)
- Branham v. Heckler, 775 F.2d 1271 (4th Cir. 1985) (IQ stability presumptions and child-to-adult testing considerations)
- Guzman v. Bowen, 801 F.2d 273 (7th Cir. 1986) (IQ stability principles in disability determinations)