Patricia Vance v. Nancy A. Berryhill
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11390
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Patricia Vance applied for Supplemental Security Income alleging a disabling nerve disorder; she amended her onset date to October 3, 2011.
- An ALJ found at step one that she had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the application date, and at step two that she had severe impairments: inherited myelopathy vs. conversion disorder, adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, and borderline intellectual functioning.
- The ALJ assessed a residual functional capacity (RFC) for sedentary work, allowing use of a walker and limiting to unskilled, simple, routine, repetitive tasks.
- Relying on vocational expert testimony, the ALJ concluded Vance could perform jobs existing in significant numbers and denied benefits; the Appeals Council and district court affirmed.
- Vance appealed, arguing (1) inadequate step‑three analysis of Listing 11.00, (2) error in finding she did not meet Listing 12.05C (mental retardation/intellectual disability), and (3) failure to give controlling weight to her treating physician’s RFC opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ adequately considered Listing 11.00 (neurological listings) | Vance says the ALJ failed to explain how her impairments did not meet Listing 11.17A and asks for remand for more detailed analysis | The Commissioner argues the record (normal/near‑normal strength, intact reflexes, MRI without pathology, improved gait with walker) does not show the required persistent, significant motor dysfunction | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports ALJ; no remand required |
| Whether Vance meets Listing 12.05C (significantly subaverage IQ with adaptive deficits before age 22 plus other impairment) | Vance relies on low IQ scores (FSIQ 64, VIQ 63, PIQ 69), special education placement, school psychologist notes, limited work history, and daily living limitations | Commissioner points to evidence of adaptive functioning: graduation, driver’s license, marriage, parenting, reading/writing, handling money, shopping, cooking, and school psychologist’s statement that she was "educable" with only mild delays | Affirmed — ALJ reasonably found insufficient deficits in adaptive functioning to meet 12.05C |
| Whether ALJ erred by not giving controlling weight to treating physician (Dr. Jung) | Vance contends Dr. Jung’s assessment of severe workplace limitations should be controlling | Commissioner contends Dr. Jung relied on Vance’s subjective, not fully credible complaints; objective evidence and state‑agency opinions contradicted Dr. Jung’s extreme limitations | Affirmed — ALJ permissibly discounted portions of treating opinion tied to claimant’s noncredible statements and relied on more consistent evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (establishes the SSA five‑step disability evaluation framework)
- Julin v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 1082 (substantial‑evidence review and treating‑physician guidance)
- Gonzales v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 890 (definition of substantial evidence)
- Scott ex rel. Scott v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 818 (insufficient explanation not automatically reversible)
- Karlix v. Barnhart, 457 F.3d 742 (no remand required where record supports listing conclusion)
- Johnson v. Colvin, 788 F.3d 870 (adaptive‑functioning evidence relevant to Listing 12.05)
- Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (factors for evaluating claimant’s subjective complaints)
- Heino v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 873 (ALJ may rely on state‑agency opinions when consistent with record)