Sheeks v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
544 F. App'x 639
6th Cir.2013Background
- Michael Sheeks applied for Supplemental Security Income in 2007, claiming disability from intellectual limitations, anxiety, seizures, insomnia, chest pain, carpal tunnel, and enlarged prostate.
- The Social Security Administration denied benefits; an ALJ held Sheeks not disabled and the Appeals Council declined review.
- Sheeks sued in district court; the court affirmed the agency decision. Sheeks appealed to the Sixth Circuit.
- Central legal question: whether the ALJ should have addressed Listing 12.05(C) (intellectual disability) given evidence in the record.
- The ALJ found only borderline intellectual functioning and limited Sheeks to simple, routine, repetitive work, also accommodating right-arm overhead lifting limitations for carpal tunnel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred by not discussing Listing 12.05(C) (intellectual disability) | Sheeks argued the record raised a substantial question that he met 12.05(C) because of special-education history and limited schooling | Commissioner: claimant did not preserve the argument before ALJ but the Court may still decide; record does not raise a substantial question on all listing elements | No error; Sheeks failed to show a substantial question on key elements (onset before 22, adaptive deficits, valid IQ ≤70) justifying remand |
| Whether ALJ improperly characterized psychologist Dr. Mills’ report | Sheeks claimed the ALJ mischaracterized impairments noted by Dr. Mills | Commissioner pointed to Dr. Mills’ opinion that limitations were mild and non-examining reviewers’ opinions; ALJ limited work to simple routine tasks accordingly | Substantial evidence supports ALJ’s characterization and RFC limiting Sheeks to simple, routine, repetitive tasks |
| Whether ALJ failed to account for carpal-tunnel limitations | Sheeks argued ALJ ignored upper-extremity limits | Commissioner noted ALJ expressly limited overhead right-arm work and lifting at/above shoulder level and included this in VE hypotheticals | No error; ALJ accommodated carpal-tunnel-related restrictions in RFC and hypotheticals |
Key Cases Cited
- Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2013) (standard of review: substantial evidence and correct legal rules)
- Abbott v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 918 (6th Cir. 1990) (ALJ should discuss a listing when record raises a substantial question about its applicability)
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (1987) (listings streamline disability decisions by focusing on impairments)
- Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990) (meeting or equaling a listing requires finding disability)
- United States v. Turner, 602 F.3d 778 (6th Cir. 2010) (forfeiture principles)
- West v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 240 F. App’x 692 (6th Cir. 2007) (discussion of adaptive functioning in intellectual-disability analysis)