Karen Ash v. Carolyn W. Colvin
812 F.3d 686
8th Cir.2016Background
- Karen Ash applied for DIB and SSI alleging onset June 26, 2010, citing back pain, depression, headaches, hand/heel problems, and mild mental retardation; had ~10-year work history as a Family Dollar cashier.
- Neuropsych testing (WAIS-IV) by Dr. Vowell produced full-scale IQ 57 and index scores in the 58–70 range; he diagnosed mild mental retardation but reported no clear deficits in day-to-day adaptive functioning.
- Dr. Kelly (consultant) noted Ash’s long work history and concluded she could perform unskilled, simple, repetitive work despite low IQ scores.
- ALJ found at step two that Ash had severe impairments including mild mental retardation, but at step three concluded she did not meet Listing 12.05C because she lacked demonstrable deficits in adaptive functioning; RFC: light work with nonexertional limits; could perform jobs such as housekeeper/cafeteria attendant.
- Appeals Council denied review; district court affirmed; Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s step-three finding that Ash did not meet Listing 12.05C.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ash meets Listing 12.05C (mental retardation requiring IQ 60–70 and deficits in adaptive functioning) | Ash: IQ and history (special education, parental help, workplace accommodations) show significantly subaverage intellect with adaptive deficits manifested before age 22, satisfying 12.05C | Commissioner: Although IQ scores are low, record shows Ash performs many daily adaptive tasks (drives, shops, household chores, ten-year work history); no deficits sufficient for Listing 12.05C | Court: Affirmed — substantial evidence supports ALJ’s conclusion that Ash lacks the requisite adaptive-functioning deficits to meet Listing 12.05C |
| Whether ALJ’s step-two finding of a severe impairment of mild mental retardation is inconsistent with the step-three finding that she lacks adaptive deficits | Ash: A medical diagnosis of mental retardation necessarily implies adaptive-functioning deficits, so step-two and step-three findings conflict | Commissioner: Step-two “severe impairment” finding need only show a limitation in basic work activities; step-three requires specific deficits for Listing; the two are distinct inquiries | Court: No inconsistency — ALJ reasonably relied on Dr. Vowell’s observations and other evidence to find the IQ score did not reflect disabling adaptive deficits for Listing purposes |
| Whether ALJ improperly discounted Dr. Vowell’s diagnosis | Ash: Dr. Vowell diagnosed mild mental retardation and linked it to adaptive limitations | Commissioner: Dr. Vowell’s report itself noted no interference with daily adaptive functioning; ALJ permissibly interpreted the report alongside other evidence | Court: ALJ’s interpretation of Dr. Vowell’s findings is reasonable and supported by the record |
| Whether any internal inconsistency (per Lott) requires remand | Ash: Cites Lott to argue internal inconsistencies should remand the case | Commissioner: Lott is distinguishable because there the psychologist’s opinion and record more clearly conflicted with the ALJ’s findings | Court: Distinguished Lott and found no similar inconsistency warranting remand |
Key Cases Cited
- McNamara v. Astrue, 590 F.3d 607 (standard of appellate review: substantial evidence)
- McKinney v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 860 (definition of substantial evidence)
- Carlson v. Astrue, 604 F.3d 589 (weighing evidence that supports and detracts)
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (step-three conclusive presumption when a listing is met)
- Maresh v. Barnhart, 438 F.3d 897 (Listing 12.05 adaptive-functioning requirement)
- Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546 (internal inconsistency between step-two and step-three findings; distinguished)
- Cox v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 614 (medical vs. legal standards for mental retardation)
- Talavera v. Astrue, 697 F.3d 145 (discussion on Listing 12.05 and adaptive functioning)