244 F. App'x 937 (11th Cir. 2007)

From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Garrett v. Astrue

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Jul 3, 2007

244 F. App'x 937 (11th Cir. 2007)

Summary

holding that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's finding that a claimant did not meet Listing 12.05 in part because the claimant's ability to perform chores, cook simple meals, build model cars, go to church, play cards, walk in the mall, and watch television indicate that he lacked the required deficits in adaptive functioning

Summary of this case from Jennings v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.

See 20 Summaries

Opinion

No. 06-16058 Non-Argument Calendar.

July 3, 2007.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, D. C. Docket No. 05-00070-CV-CDL-3.

Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

John Garrett appeals the judgment of the district court that affirmed the denial of Garrett's application for supplemental security income benefits. Garrett argues that the administrative law judge erred when he rejected Garrett's IQ score, failed to follow the sequential evaluation of disability, and failed to invoke the rebuttable presumption that an IQ score represents a claimant's lifelong intellectual capacity, as explicated in Hodges v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2001). Because the denial of Garrett's supplemental security income was supported by substantial evidence and the ALJ applied the correct legal standards, we affirm.

We review a social security appeal to determine whether the decision of the ALJ is supported by substantial evidence and whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards.See 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g); Crawford v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as the reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Walden v. Schweiker, 672 F.2d 835, 838 (11th Cir. 1982). We review de novo the decision of the district court regarding whether substantial evidence supports the findings of the ALJ. Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1221 (11th Cir. 2002).

Because the ALJ did not reject Garrett's IQ score, Garrett's first argument fails. The ALJ recognized that Garrett's IQ score was low, but found that Garrett's impairments did not meet any condition in the listing category for mental retardation. 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. p, app. 1, §§ 12.05. Specifically, the ALJ found that Garrett did not have the required deficits in adaptive functioning.

Garrett contends that the ALJ erroneously evaluated Garrett's alleged disability when the ALJ considered whether Garrett was capable of performing work he had done in the past. The ALJ was required to follow five sequential steps in the evaluation of Garrett, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), but Garrett argues that the ALJ erroneously skipped step three of that evaluation. Garrett's argument fails.

The record establishes that the ALJ did not omit any steps in his evaluation of Garrett's alleged disability. The ALJ considered Garrett's work history and ability to perform past work, factors considered during step four of the sequence, only after the ALJ had decided that Garrett did not qualify as disabled under step three. Contrary to Garrett's argument, the ALJ correctly followed the sequential process.

Garrett argues that the ALJ erred when he failed to employ theHodges presumption that an IQ score represents a claimant's lifelong intellectual capacity. Hodges, 276 F.3d at 1268-1269. It was not error for the ALJ not to mention the Hodges presumption because the ALJ did not challenge that Garrett's low IQ began before age twenty-two.

Substantial evidence supports the denial by the ALJ of Garrett's claim for social security disability benefits. The record supports the finding by the ALJ that the required limitations to adaptive functioning were not present, despite Garrett's low IQ score. Garrett is able to cook simple meals; perform chores such as dishwashing and yard work; and build model cars. Garrett's daily activities include church attendance, television viewing, card playing, and walking in the mall. Garrett also testified that, with orientation and instruction, he believed he could return to a job as a stock assistant.

The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

Summaries of

Garrett v. Astrue

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Jul 3, 2007

244 F. App'x 937 (11th Cir. 2007)

Summary of this case from Jennings v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.

holding record supported ALJ's finding claimant with low IQ score did not have adaptive functioning deficits where claimant was able to cook simple meals, perform chores such as dishwashing and yard work, build model cars, and regularly attend church, watch television, play cards, and walk to the mall, and where claimant testified that with orientation and instruction, he believed he could return to a job as a stock assistant

Summary of this case from Welch v. Soc. Sec. Admin.

holding that the claimant's ability to cook simple meals, perform household chores, build model cars, attend church, watch television, play cards, and walk in the mall were inconsistent with a finding of significant impairment of adaptive functioning

Summary of this case from Hubbard v. Colvin

Summary of this case from Breedlove v. Colvin

Summary of this case from Ford v. Colvin

Summary of this case from Borden v. Astrue

finding that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's finding that a claimant with a qualifying IQ score did not have the required limitations to adaptive functioning based on evidence that the claimant could cook simple meals, perform household chores and yard work, and build model cars and on evidence that the claimant's "daily activities include church attendance, television viewing, card playing, and walking in the mall"

Summary of this case from Belton v. Berryhill

finding no deficits in adaptive functioning where claimant was "able to cook simple meals; perform chores such as dishwashing and yard work; and build model cars," had daily activities that included "church attendance, television viewing, card playing, and walking in the mall," and testified that "with orientation and instruction, he believed he could return to [unskilled work]."

Summary of this case from Wright v. Colvin

finding that the ALJ did not err in determining that the required limitations in adaptive functioning were not present, despite the claimant's low IQ score, based on the claimant's activities of daily living and work history

Summary of this case from Small v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Summary of this case from Chatman v. Colvin

finding that despite a valid IQ score, the claimant demonstrated no deficits in adaptive functioning because he was able to cook simple meals; perform chores such as dishwashing; he could build model cars, attend church, watch television, and play cards; and believed he could return to unskilled work "with orientation and instruction"

Summary of this case from Tate v. Colvin

finding no deficits in adaptive functioning where the claimant was "able to cook simple meals; perform chores such as dishwashing and yard work; and build model cars," had daily activities that included "church attendance, television viewing, card playing, and walking in the mall," and testified that "with orientation and instruction, he believed he could return to [unskilled work]."

Summary of this case from Wigfall v. Colvin

finding no error in ALJ's failure to mention the Hodges presumption, where the ALJ found that the claimant did not meet the mental retardation listings because, despite his low IQ score, he "did not have the required deficits in adaptive functioning"

Summary of this case from Walker v. Colvin

finding no adaptive functioning deficits when the claimant was able to perform simple chores, attend church, watch television, play cards, walk in the mall, and the claimant testified with proper instruction he could return to his job as a stock assistant

Summary of this case from Williams v. Astrue

concluding claimant's ability to cook simple meals, perform chores, build model cars, attend church, watch television, play cards, and walk in the mall supported finding claimant did not have limitations in adaptive functioning

Summary of this case from Champion v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

upholding ALJ's finding that the required limitations to adaptive functioning were not present, despite claimant's low IQ score, where he was "able to cook simple meals; perform chores such as dishwashing and yard work; and build model cars" and his daily activities included church attendance, television viewing, card playing, and walking in the mall

Summary of this case from Masters v. Berryhill

affirming ALJ determination that limitations to adaptive functioning were not present, despite Garrett's low IQ score, where he was able to cook simple meals, perform chores such as dishwashing and yard work, build model cars, attend church, watch television, play cards, and walk in the mall

Summary of this case from Askew v. Colvin

rejecting a Listing 12.05(C) claim where "the ALJ found that [the claimant] did not have the required deficits in adaptive functioning"

Summary of this case from Randall v. Astrue

In Garrett, the claimant was able to cook simple meals, perform chores such as washing dishes and yard work, build model cars, attend church, watch television, play cards, and walk in the mall.

Summary of this case from McGirt v. Colvin

referencing card playing and walking in the mall

Summary of this case from Bouler v. Colvin

Garrett v. Astrue

Summary

Opinion

Garrett v. Astrue

Garrett v. Astrue

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

Garrett v. Astrue

Summary

Opinion

Garrett v. Astrue

Garrett v. Astrue

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citing Cases

Citations