643 F. App'x 273
4th Cir.2016Background
- Claimant Jonathan Henderson applied for Social Security disability benefits, alleging onset of disability from degenerative disc disease and borderline intelligence; ALJ denied benefits and district court affirmed in part.
- ALJ found claimant not engaged in substantial gainful activity and identified severe impairments of degenerative disc disease and borderline intellectual functioning; RFC limited claimant to simple one- to two-step tasks with low stress.
- Psychological testing in 2011 produced a WAIS-IV full-scale IQ of 65, but the examiner questioned the score’s validity due to slow processing speed and opined Henderson’s intelligence was borderline to low average.
- Medical record contained inconsistent strength findings (some 5/5, some 4+/5), no documented muscle atrophy, and mixed objective findings relevant to nerve root compression.
- A vocational expert (VE) testified that claimant could perform certain jobs that the DOT classifies with GED Reasoning Code 2, despite claimant’s RFC limiting him to 1–2 step tasks.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Henderson meets Listing 12.05(C) (intellectual disability) | Henderson contends his WAIS-IV FSIQ of 65 satisfies the Listing | Commissioner argues the IQ score is invalid/unreliable and does not satisfy Listing prong(s) | Court: ALJ did not err in rejecting the IQ score as dispositive; Henderson fails Prong Two, so Listing not met |
| Whether Henderson meets Listing 1.04 (spinal nerve root compression) | Henderson asserts evidence of motor weakness, decreased reflexes, and positive SLR support the Listing | Commissioner argues lack of required findings (atrophy, consistent motor loss) and substantial evidence contradicts lone weak finding | Court: Substantial evidence supports ALJ’s conclusion that Listing 1.04 is not met (no atrophy; strength mostly normal) |
| Whether VE testimony conflicted with the DOT and whether ALJ adequately resolved any conflict | Henderson contends VE’s testimony permitting DOT Reasoning Code 2 jobs conflicts with RFC limited to 1–2 step tasks and ALJ failed to identify/resolve conflict | Commissioner relied on VE’s statement that no conflict existed and ALJ’s inquiry of the VE | Court: Under Pearson, ALJ erred by relying on the VE’s conclusory ‘‘no conflict’’ answer without identifying and resolving the apparent conflict; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470 (4th Cir. 2012) (ALJ may assess validity of IQ scores and need not accept a questionable score)
- Pearson v. Colvin, 810 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2015) (ALJ must identify and resolve apparent conflicts between VE testimony and the DOT; VE’s conclusory denial of conflict is insufficient)
- Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2013) (ALJ must explain credibility findings and apply legal requirements to record to permit substantial-evidence review)
- Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650 (4th Cir. 2005) (standard for substantial-evidence review)