Markus Jamaal Rudolph v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
709 F. App'x 930
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Rudolph, age 32, applied for SSI alleging mental disabilities with onset January 31, 2008; he submitted IQ scores (verbal 68, full scale 70) and school records showing special education, grade retention, and poor test scores.
- The ALJ found Rudolph met steps one and two of the five-step disability test but concluded he did not meet Listing 12.05 (intellectual disability) at step three.
- The ALJ analyzed Listing 12.05D in detail and briefly dismissed Listings 12.05A–C, stating there was “no evidence” his borderline intellectual functioning was present in school and pointing to some better performance indicators (e.g., a 2.5 high school GPA).
- The ALJ proceeded to steps four and five, found no past relevant work, but concluded jobs exist that Rudolph can perform and denied benefits; the Appeals Council denied review and the district court affirmed.
- Rudolph challenged the step-three finding as to Listing 12.05C, arguing the ALJ failed to apply the Eleventh Circuit’s Hodges presumption that a valid IQ score of 60–70 taken after age 22 establishes onset before age 22.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred at step three by not applying Hodges presumption for Listing 12.05C | Rudolph: his valid adult IQ (70) triggers Hodges presumption of onset before 22; ALJ thus should have found or addressed Listing 12.05C | ALJ implicitly treated burden as on Rudolph to prove childhood onset and relied on school/academic evidence to deny Listing 12.05C | Reversed and remanded: ALJ must apply Hodges presumption or explain why it does not apply |
| Whether ALJ’s finding of “no evidence” of childhood manifestation was supported | Rudolph: submitted school records and expert testimony indicating borderline intellectual function in school | ALJ relied on some contrary school/academic indicators (e.g., GPA) to find no childhood onset | Court: ALJ’s factual finding was flawed—there was record evidence of childhood deficits; cannot ignore Hodges presumption |
| Whether a valid IQ score alone satisfies Listing 12.05C | Rudolph: IQ 60–70 is part of Listing 12.05C and gives rise to presumption of onset | Commissioner: IQ alone is not sufficient; must show additional impairment causing significant work-related limitation | Court: IQ in range gives rise to presumption but claimant still must show additional impairment; Commissioner may rebut presumption |
| Remedial scope on remand | Rudolph: next ALJ decision should find Listing 12.05C if presumption unrebutted and additional impairment shown | Commissioner: ALJ may reassess all steps if step three outcome changes | Court: Remand for ALJ to apply Hodges presumption or explain nonapplication and then determine Listing 12.05C; ALJ may revisit steps four and five as needed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (Sup. Ct.) (explaining the five-step disability evaluation)
- Ingram v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 496 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2007) (standard of review and reversal for failure to apply correct law)
- Hodges v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2001) (presumption that a valid adult IQ 60–70 indicates onset before age 22)
- Falge v. Apfel, 150 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 1998) (Appeals Council denial makes ALJ decision final)