Lashonja Gibbs v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
686 F. App'x 799
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Gibbs applied for SSI; ALJ denied benefits; district court affirmed; Gibbs appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.
- At Step 3 Gibbs argued she met Listing 12.05(C) for intellectual disability (IQ 60–70 plus an additional impairment causing significant work-related limitation).
- ALJ found Gibbs did not meet Listing 12.05(C), concluding she lacked requisite deficits in adaptive functioning despite some special-education history and limited formal schooling.
- Record evidence cited by ALJ: Gibbs lived alone at times, cared for her daughter, handled money and bills, drove, shopped, cooked simple meals, and volunteered with church—indicating basic adaptive functioning.
- ALJ gave little weight to the retained consultant Dr. Blanton’s opinion because of inconsistencies with other records and indications of malingering noted by Dr. Boggs; regular providers had not diagnosed intellectual disability.
- Eleventh Circuit reviewed for substantial evidence and correct legal standards and affirmed the denial of SSI benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports ALJ’s finding that Gibbs does not meet Listing 12.05(C) | Gibbs: school history, repeating grades, limited work history, and limited daily functioning show deficits in adaptive functioning satisfying the Listing | Commissioner/ALJ: record shows sufficient adaptive functioning (living independently at times, caring for child, handling money, driving, shopping); IQ evidence and consultant opinion unreliable | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports ALJ that Gibbs lacks required adaptive deficits for Listing 12.05(C) |
| Whether ALJ properly weighed IQ and expert opinion evidence | Gibbs: IQ and expert report satisfy Listing 12.05(C) | Commissioner: ALJ may find IQ results invalid if inconsistent with other evidence; ALJ permissibly discounted consultant due to inconsistencies and malingering indications | Affirmed — ALJ permissibly discounted Dr. Blanton and found IQ/testing not credible in context of record |
| Whether district court applied incorrect standard in reviewing ALJ decision | Gibbs: district court misstated relevance of certain evidence, applied wrong standard | Commissioner/district court: applied substantial-evidence standard; noted appellate review defers to ALJ where substantial evidence supports findings | Affirmed — district court applied correct substantial-evidence standard |
| Burden of proof at Step 3 | Gibbs: argued she met burden to prove Listing | Commissioner: Step 3 burden on claimant; diagnosis alone insufficient—must meet Listing criteria with medical documentation | Affirmed — claimant failed to meet her burden to show Listing criteria satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 1999) (standard of review and five-step sequential evaluation framework)
- Crawford v. Commissioner of Social Security, 363 F.3d 1155 (11th Cir. 2004) (substantial-evidence standard in social-security review)
- Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 2005) (court may not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for the Commissioner)
- Barron v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 227 (11th Cir. 1991) (claimant bears burden at Step 3 to show impairment meets a listing)
- Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2002) (diagnosis alone insufficient to meet a listing; need medical reports documenting required criteria)
- Popp v. Heckler, 779 F.2d 1497 (11th Cir. 1986) (IQ scores may be rejected when inconsistent with other evidence, including evidence of malingering)
- Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278 (11th Cir. 1987) (ALJ may reject a medical opinion if evidence supports a contrary finding)
- Lowery v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1992) (explaining how Listing 12.05(C) generally applies when IQ 60–70 and an additional impairment has more than minimal effect on basic work activities)