Jerry Joyce v. Comm'r of Social Security, 662 F. App'x 430

Joyce applied for Social Security disability and SSI for a closed period (2007–2012) alleging cognitive limitations, depression, and back/leg problems; ALJ assessed case anew in 2014.
Educational and daily-function evidence: high-school diploma (special education until 6th grade), mixed grades, GED, driver’s license; reports show ability to shop, cook, pay bills, count change, and perform household chores.
Work history: sporadic, low-skilled jobs during claimed period; worked as a gas-station attendant (Petro) from 2012–2014 (made ineligible for benefits after 2012).
Conflicting psychological evaluations: Dr. Little (2010) found borderline intelligence, able to perform simple work and likely exaggeration of deficits; Dr. Neal (2011) administered an IQ test scoring 65 and diagnosed intellectual disability, opining Joyce could never work.
ALJ found Joyce did not meet Listing 12.05C (intellectual disability), gave Dr. Neal’s IQ report no weight, limited Joyce to simple 1–3 step tasks, and—relying on a vocational expert—found he could work as a cashier or ticket seller.
Appeals Court review: Court affirms district court and Commissioner, finding substantial evidence supports ALJ’s conclusions despite a procedural error the court deemed harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Joyce meets Listing 12.05C (intellectual disability)	Joyce: Dr. Neal’s IQ 65 and his biography show onset before age 22 and adaptive deficits satisfying 12.05C	Commissioner: School records, adaptive functioning, work history, and Dr. Little’s exam undercut Neal’s score and show no developmental onset or adaptive deficits	ALJ properly rejected Neal’s score as inconsistent with record; Joyce does not meet 12.05C
Whether ALJ erred by not resolving an apparent conflict between simple-task limitation and DOT reasoning level 3 jobs	Joyce: Limitation to simple 1–3 step instructions conflicts with DOT reasoning level 3 for cashier/ticket seller; ALJ had duty under SSR 00-4p to resolve conflict, requiring remand	Commissioner: VE testimony supported by record; any procedural lapse was harmless because Joyce’s abilities and work history fit the VE jobs	Court: ALJ committed procedural error by not inquiring, but error was harmless here; substantial evidence supports finding Joyce can perform cashier/ticket seller work

Blakley v. Commissioner of Social Security, 581 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2009) (standard of review and substantial-evidence framework)
Key v. Callahan, 109 F.3d 270 (6th Cir. 1997) (substantial-evidence review principle)
McClanahan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 474 F.3d 830 (6th Cir. 2006) (definition of substantial evidence)
Besaw v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 966 F.2d 1028 (6th Cir. 1992) (substantial-evidence discussion)
Brown v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 948 F.2d 268 (6th Cir. 1991) (discussion of when IQ scores and biography support a finding of mild mental retardation)
Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535 (6th Cir. 1986) (existence of a zone of choice for administrative decisionmakers)
Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990) (requirements for meeting a listings impairment)
Foster v. Halter, 279 F.3d 348 (6th Cir. 2001) (education and special-education history in step-three analysis)