Lowery v. Sullivan

1,000+ Citing cases

  1. Henderson v. Colvin

    Case No. 8:15-cv-1433-T-MCR (M.D. Fla. Sep. 19, 2016)

    The district court must view the evidence as a whole, taking into account evidence favorable as well as unfavorable to the decision. Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1560 (11th Cir. 1995); accord Lowery v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1992) (stating the court must scrutinize the entire record to determine the reasonableness of the Commissioner's factual findings). II. Discussion

  2. Castro v. Berryhill

    CASE NO. 3:15-cv-1396-J-MCR (M.D. Fla. Mar. 20, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    The district court must view the evidence as a whole, taking into account evidence favorable as well as unfavorable to the decision. Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1560 (11th Cir. 1995); accord Lowery v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1992) (stating the court must scrutinize the entire record to determine the reasonableness of the Commissioner's factual findings). II. Discussion

  3. Leslie v. Colvin

    196 F. Supp. 3d 1248 (N.D. Ala. 2016)   Cited 6 times
    Stating that although "the Commissioner's arguments . . . may, on remand, have merit, acceptance of such post hoc rationalizations that go substantially beyond the contents of the ALJ's opinion infringes upon the court's 'function . . . to ensure that the decision was based on a reasonable and consistently applied standard, and was carefully considered in light of all the relevant facts" (quoting Owens, 748 F.2d at 1516)

    Further, the court may look to more than one portion of the record when determining whether the claimant meets the Listing. SeeLowery v. Sullivan , 979 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir.1992) (acknowledging that a valid I.Q. score need not be conclusive of intellectual disability, when the I.Q. score is inconsistent with the other evidence in the record concerning the claimant's daily activities and behavior).Generally, "the claimant meets the criteria for presumptive disability under ... section 12.05(C) when the claimant presents a valid I.Q. score of 60 through 70 inclusive, and when the claimant presents evidence of an additional mental or physical impairment significantly affecting claimant's ability to work."

  4. Richardson v. Colvin

    Case No.: 6:12-CV-0383-VEH (N.D. Ala. Aug. 16, 2013)   Cited 2 times

    Further, the court may look to more than one portion of the record when determining whether the claimant meets the Listing. See Lowery v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1992) (acknowledging that a valid IQ score need not be conclusive of intellectual disability, when the IQ score is inconsistent with the other evidence in the record concerning the claimant's daily activities and behavior). A. The IQ Requirement of Subpart B to Listing 12.05

  5. Gorden v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    Case No: 2:15-cv-517-FtM-CM (M.D. Fla. Sep. 26, 2016)

    "The district court must view the record as a whole, taking into account evidence favorable as well as unfavorable to the decision." Foote, 67 F.3d at 1560; see also Lowery v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1992) (stating that the court must scrutinize the entire record to determine the reasonableness of the factual findings). The Eleventh Circuit recently has restated that "[i]n determining whether substantial evidence supports a decision, we give great deference to the ALJ's factfindings."

  6. Quarles v. Colvin

    CV 113-117 (S.D. Ga. Jul. 9, 2014)

    " Id. Thus, a claimant generally meets the Listing 12.05(C) criteria when he, in addition to satisfying the diagnostic definition, "presents a valid IQ score of 60 to 70 inclusive, and evidence of an additional mental or physical impairment that has more than 'minimal effect' on the claimant's ability to perform basic work activities." Lowery v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1992). In the context of mental disorders, the regulations provide that "since the results of intelligence tests are only part of the overall assessment, the narrative report that accompanies the test results should comment on whether the IQ scores are considered valid and consistent with the developmental history and the degree of functional limitations.

  7. Morgan-Gomez v. Colvin

    No. 13-53-AS (C.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    The presumption can be rebutted by showing that the IQ score is invalid. See Lowery v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 835, 837-38 (11th Cir. 1992) (citing Popper v. Heckler, 779 F.2d 1497, 1499 (11th Cir. 1986)), cited with approval in Hodges, 276 F.3d at 1269; Schuler, 2010 WL 1443892, at *6 (citing Lowery, 979 F.2d at 837). To reject the validity of an IQ score, the ALJ may rely on "the claimant's daily activities and behavior."Lowery, 979 F.2d at 837.

  8. Black v. Astrue

    678 F. Supp. 2d 1250 (N.D. Fla. 2010)   Cited 19 times
    Finding no evidence "from which the ALJ might have properly concluded that [IQ] scores were invalid" where "none of the experts conducting the tests expressed any doubts about the validity of the scores"

    It is permissible to consider evidence of adaptive functioning in determining the weight to be given an I.Q. score. In Lowery v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1992), the court held: Generally, a claimant meets the criteria for presumptive disability under section 12.05(C) when the claimant presents a valid I.Q. score of 60 to 70 inclusive, and evidence of an additional mental or physical impairment that has more than "minimal effect" on the claimant's ability to perform basic work activities.

  9. Black v. Astrue

    Case No. 4:09cv71-MP/WCS (N.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2009)

    It is permissible to consider evidence of adaptive functioning in determining the weight to be given an I.Q. score. In Lowery v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1992), the court held: Generally, a claimant meets the criteria for presumptive disability under section 12.05(C) when the claimant presents a valid I.Q. score of 60 to 70 inclusive, and evidence of an additional mental or physical impairment that has more than "minimal effect" on the claimant's ability to perform basic work activities.

  10. Durham v. Apfel

    34 F. Supp. 2d 1373 (N.D. Ga. 1998)   Cited 26 times
    Finding "no evidence that [jobs as a heavy laborer] are beyond the reach of a mildly retarded individual"

    The court has held that a claimant meets the mental retardation listing, 12.05C, when the following are shown: 1) a valid I.Q. score of 60 to 70 inclusive; and 2) a physical or other mental impairment imposing additional and significant work-related limitation of function. Lowery v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1992). The requirement that mental retardation or low IQ began prior to age 22 is met when nothing in the record reflects an incident in which claimant suddenly became mentally retarded.