Mark Jones v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner
695 F. App'x 507
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Mark Jones applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits; ALJ denied and district court affirmed; Jones appealed.
- Central legal question: whether Jones met or equaled Listing 12.05(C) (intellectual disability) based principally on a verbal IQ score of 63 from an examining psychologist.
- Listing 12.05 requires (1) significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning, (2) deficits in adaptive functioning, and (3) onset before age 22; subsection C requires a valid IQ 60–70 plus another severe impairment.
- The ALJ found Jones had borderline intellectual functioning (non-severe), noted disparity among IQ subtest scores, and concluded Jones’s daily activities rebutted the presumption of adaptive deficits despite the verbal IQ score.
- The ALJ also applied the psychiatric review technique, finding no restrictions in daily living, social functioning, concentration/persistence/pace, or episodes of decompensation.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed for substantial evidence and proper legal standards and affirmed the denial of benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jones met Listing 12.05(C) | Jones: qualifying verbal IQ of 63 satisfies Listing 12.05(C) | SSA: IQ score can be rebutted by evidence showing higher adaptive functioning | Held: No — substantial evidence supports ALJ’s conclusion that adaptive deficits were rebutted and Listing 12.05 not met |
| Whether the verbal IQ score was dispositive | Jones: the score is a valid indicator of intellectual disability | SSA: IQ score inconsistent with other record evidence (daily activities, higher subtest scores) | Held: ALJ permissibly considered score but found it inconsistent with other evidence; presumption rebutted |
| Whether ALJ improperly rejected Dr. Storjohann’s findings | Jones: ALJ rejected or ignored examiner’s opinion that supports disability | SSA: ALJ credited examiner in part (borderline functioning) and relied on whole record | Held: No error — ALJ did not reject examiner but integrated his findings into a non-severe diagnosis |
| Whether ALJ failed to perform psychiatric review technique | Jones: ALJ did not follow required four-domain analysis | SSA: ALJ used and incorporated the special technique in written decision | Held: No error — ALJ evaluated all four functional areas and incorporated results |
Key Cases Cited
- Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir.) (substantial-evidence standard for reviewing ALJ decisions)
- Mitchell v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 771 F.3d 780 (11th Cir.) (court must affirm ALJ if supported by substantial evidence)
- Carnes v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1215 (11th Cir.) (effect of meeting a listing at step three)
- Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir.) (five-step sequential evaluation overview)
- Crayton v. Callahan, 120 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir.) (diagnostic criteria for Listing 12.05)
- Edwards by Edwards v. Heckler, 755 F.2d 1513 (11th Cir.) (severe impairment counts as additional impairment under 12.05(C))
- Hodges v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir.) (IQ below 70 creates rebuttable presumption of early adaptive deficits)
- Lowery v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 835 (11th Cir.) (IQ results must be consistent with daily activities and behavior)
- Popp v. Heckler, 779 F.2d 1497 (11th Cir.) (agency must examine test results with medical report and daily functioning)
- Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir.) (requirement to apply and incorporate psychiatric review technique)