From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Popp v. Heckler

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Jan 13, 1986
779 F.2d 1497 (11th Cir. 1986)

Summary

holding that the ALJ did not have to accept scores in the listing range for a claimant who had a two-year college degree, was enrolled in a third year of college, and had a history of several skilled jobs including teaching algebra at a private school.

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

Opinion

No. 85-3508. Non-Argument Calendar.

January 13, 1986.

Clifford M. Farrell, Columbus, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellant.

Lynne L. England, Asst. U.S. Atty., Tampa, Fla., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, RONEY and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.


Kenneth Popp appeals from an order of the district court affirming the Secretary's denial of his claim for disability insurance benefits. On appeal, Popp specifically contends that the Secretary erred in applying the regulations regarding to mental retardation.

Popp filed an application for disability benefits in November 1981, alleging that he had been disabled due to degenerative arthritis and cervical/lumbar disc disease since April 1981. In March 1982, it was determined that Popp had been disabled from April 30, 1981. In May 1982, Popp was notified by the Secretary that, based upon new and material evidence received, his case had been reopened and a revised determination had been made that Popp had not been disabled for any continuous period of twelve consecutive months and was not disabled. This revised determination on Popp's application reversed the earlier decision. Popp requested and received a hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ") which was held in April 1983.

At the time of the hearing, Popp was a twenty-nine year old man who held a two-year college associates degree and was enrolled in a third year of college as a history major. From 1972 through 1976, Popp worked as an administrative clerk in the Army. After discharge, he was employed at a VA hospital as a statistical clerk. Other later jobs included work as a postal clerk, soil testing technician, cashier, and algebra teacher at a private school for grades ten through twelve. A vocational report completed by Popp indicated that his past work involved considerable technical knowledge and skills in the use of various machines, tools, and equipment as well as responsibilities for the completion of various reports.

After the hearing before the ALJ, a psychological evaluation of Mr. Popp was conducted in May 1983. The psychologist administered a Bender Motor Gestalt Test, a Wexler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised ("WAIS-R") Test, and a Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory ("MMPI"). On the WAIS-R, Popp earned a full scale IQ of 73, a verbal IQ of 79, and a performance IQ of 69. The results of the personality testing (MMPI) could not be considered valid because the "values of scores obtained suggests that Mr. Popp attempted to appear in a very unfavorable light." Record, vol. 2 at 261. The psychologist concluded that Popp did not suffer from an organic impairment, though he was functioning "within the Borderline range of measured intelligence." Id.

Popp asserts that he meets the requirements of Listing 12.05(C) of 20 C.F.R. Part 404, subpart P, Appendix 1 (1985). A person with an impairment which is listed in Appendix 1 will be found disabled without consideration of age, education or work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d) (1985). Listing 12.05 provides:

12.05. Mental retardation. As manifested by . . .

(C) IQ of 60 to 69 inclusive (see 12.00B4) and a physical or other mental impairment imposing additional and significant work-related limitation of function.

Listing 12.00B4 begins:

(4) Mental retardation denotes a lifelong condition characterized by below-average intellectual endowment as measured by well standardized intelligence (IQ) tests and associated with impairment in one or more of the following areas: learning, maturation, and social adjustment. The degree of impairment should be determined primarily on the basis of intelligence level and a medical report. Care should be taken to ascertain that test results are consistent with daily activities and behavior.

The listing further provides that the WAIS test is a well standardized comprehensive intelligence test appropriate to such determination. In addition, it provides that, where more than one IQ level is derived from the testing, e.g., verbal, performance and full IQ's from WAIS testing, the lowest of these should be used in conjunction with 12.05.

It is clear that Popp's performance IQ of 69, if believed, should be the IQ score used in applying Listing 12.05(C). See, e.g., Edwards by Edwards v. Heckler, 755 F.2d 1513, 1515 (11th Cir. 1985); Ambers v. Heckler, 736 F.2d 1467, 1470 (11th Cir. 1984); Edwards v. Heckler, 736 F.2d 625, 629 (11th Cir. 1984). Popp asserts that, because his performance IQ was within the range provided for in Listing 12.05(C), the ALJ should have considered whether another impairment was present which would satisfy Listing 12.05(C). In fact, the ALJ found the results of the tests incredible and did not carry out the analysis that Popp suggests.

The issue to be resolved by this court is whether the ALJ may find the results of an IQ test to be incredible so that Listing 12.05 is not satisfied, and, if such an analysis is permissible, whether the ALJ was justified in disregarding the test results in this case.

Listing 12.00B4 does not require the Secretary to make a finding of mental retardation based on the results of an IQ test alone. See Strunk v. Heckler, 732 F.2d 1357, 1360 (7th Cir. 1984) ("The plaintiff has failed to supply this court, nor have we found any case law requiring the Secretary to make a finding of mental retardation based solely upon the results of a standardized intelligence test in its determination of mental retardation"). The listing requires the Secretary to take into account the intelligence test and the medical report. Moreover, the test results must be examined to assure consistency with daily activities and behavior. Thus, in the instant case, it was proper for the ALJ to examine the other evidence in the record in determining whether Popp was in fact mentally retarded.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ's finding that Popp is not mentally retarded. First, the ALJ pointed out that Popp was close to completing the requirements for a bachelor of science degree and had a history of having taught high school algebra. Moreover, Popp was not alleged to be failing in his college course studies. The ALJ properly found this to be inconsistent with a finding of mental retardation.

In response, Popp argues that academic success earlier in his life, i.e., his associates degree, does not mean that he cannot be found disabled due to mental retardation. It is suggested that severe depression, which is documented in the medical records, has caused Popp to become retarded. Appellant's brief suggests that "[r]etardation or poor WAIS-R scores due to difficulty in thinking and concentrating is therefore a logical result of severe depression." Such recently occurring, and possibly temporary, retardation would not be disabling under the listings. According to Listing 12.00B4, "[m]ental retardation denotes a lifelong condition" (emphasis added). If Popp's depression is truly the reason for his poor test score, there is no indication in the record that it is a permanent condition.

The ALJ offered additional reasons for his finding that Mr. Popp is not mentally retarded and for discrediting the IQ score. Dr. Baker, the testing psychologist, noted that the scores on the personality tests (MMPI) were considered invalid because Popp tended to place himself in a very unfavorable light. While the psychologist's report did not comment on the validity of the IQ (WAIS-R) tests, this evidence as well as other inconsistencies in Popp's testimony, demeanor, and reports of medical treatment led the ALJ to the conclusion that Popp was less than credible. For example, while he was allegedly disabled, and reported that he was unable to move his head and use his right arm, Popp engaged in umpiring softball games until April 1982. Further, examining physicians commented on the exaggeration which accompanied Popp's attempts to demonstrate the restriction of motion in his limbs or even refusal by Popp to attempt the maneuvers requested for testing. See, e.g., Record, vol. 2 at 219, 229, 256 and 257.

Additionally, the evaluation of a board certified psychiatrist in April 1982 supports the ALJ's finding. The psychiatrist reported that Popp embellished his answers to questions regarding his physical symptoms. He also seemed to exaggerate his difficulty in remembering, but had no real difficulty in the testing. His answers, however, were relevant and coherent. The psychiatrist concluded that Popp was depressed, manifested by a marked functional overlay to his orthopedic problems. Moreover, the tests performed by the psychiatrist indicated that Popp was fully oriented to time, place, and person, that he was able to recall digits backward, had no difficulty naming past presidents of the United States, was able to subtract by sevens from one hundred, and think abstractly. These testing results seem to be in conflict with those derived a year later by the psychologist. Moreover, the fact that yet another doctor commented on the tendency of the claimant to exaggerate casts further doubt on the validity of the instant test score.

In summary, the ALJ was not required to find that Popp was mentally retarded based on the results of the IQ test. The ALJ is required to examine the results in conjunction with other medical evidence and the claimant's daily activities and behavior. There is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ's finding that the results of the IQ test were incredible because they were inconsistent with other evidence and because there was good reason to believe that Popp exaggerated his problems.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Popp v. Heckler

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Jan 13, 1986
779 F.2d 1497 (11th Cir. 1986)

holding that the ALJ did not have to accept scores in the listing range for a claimant who had a two-year college degree, was enrolled in a third year of college, and had a history of several skilled jobs including teaching algebra at a private school.

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

holding that a valid IQ score can be disregarded if it is inconsistent with other evidence in the record of the claimant's daily activities and behavior

Summary of this case from Hoyett v. Colvin

holding that the ALJ was not required to find claimant was mentally retarded based on IQ test but was required to examine the results "in conjunction with other medical evidence and the claimant's daily activities and behavior"

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

holding that, if there is a question as to the validity of the IQ test results, "[t]he ALJ is required to examine the results in conjunction with other medical evidence and the claimant's daily activities and behavior"

Summary of this case from Reed v. Colvin

holding that it is also appropriate to consider medical reports, daily activities, behavior, and other evidence in the record when determining validity of I.Q. test scores

Summary of this case from Williams v. Astrue

holding that it was "proper for the ALJ to examine the other evidence in the record in determining whether [claimant] was in fact mentally retarded."

Summary of this case from Lepre v. Astrue

holding that test results should be examined to assure consistency with daily activities and behavior

Summary of this case from Thompson v. Commissioner, Social Security

holding that an invalid MMPI score in conjunction with substantial evidence can discredit a qualifying IQ score

Summary of this case from Wedge v. Astrue

holding that it was "proper for the ALJ to examine the other evidence in the record in determining whether [claimant] was in fact mentally retarded."

Summary of this case from Wilkinson v. Astrue

finding that test results of this sort should be examined "to assure consistency with daily activities and behavior."

Summary of this case from Ingram v. Berryhill

finding substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ's finding that the results of the IQ test were not credible "because they were inconsistent with other evidence and because there was good reason to believe that [the plaintiff] exaggerated his problems

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

finding the ALJ's rejection of the Plaintiff's low IQ scores proper where the Plaintiff was close to completing a bachelor's degree and had taught high school algebra

Summary of this case from Lyons v. Colvin

finding the ALJ's rejection of the claimant's low IQ scores proper where the claimant was close to completing a bachelor's degree and had taught high school algebra

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

finding a claimant's IQ scores were properly discredited where the scores were inconsistent with the claimant's college record and work history as an algebra teacher

Summary of this case from Richardson v. Colvin

finding substantial evidence for ALJ's conclusion that claimant was not mentally retarded where the claimant had a two-year college degree, was enrolled in a third year of college and had a history of several skilled jobs including teaching algebra at a private school

Summary of this case from Hutson v. Astrue

finding the ALJ's rejection of the Plaintiff's low IQ scores proper where the Plaintiff was close to completing a bachelor's degree and had taught high school algebra

Summary of this case from Juckett ex rel. K.J. v. Astrue

finding the ALJ's rejection of the Plaintiff's low IQ scores proper where the Plaintiff was close to completing a bachelor's degree and had taught high school algebra

Summary of this case from Baszto v. Astrue

concluding substantial evidence supported an ALJ's finding that, despite the claimant's IQ score of 69, other evidence in the record was inconsistent with mental retardation

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

upholding a finding the claimant was not intellectually disabled despite a low IQ score where he had a two-year college degree and had worked in technical jobs, including as an algebra teacher

Summary of this case from Southard v. Colvin

upholding a finding that IQ testing results were not credible because "there was good reason to believe that [he] exaggerated his problems"

Summary of this case from Lewis v. Astrue

upholding finding that I.Q. testing results were not credible because they were in conflict with the fact that claimant had taught high school algebra, had almost obtained a B.S. degree, and because "there was good reason to believe that [he] exaggerated his problems"

Summary of this case from Durham v. Apfel

affirming the determination that Listing 12.05C was not met despite IQ score of 69 when, among other things, the claimant "tended to place himself in a very unfavorable light"

Summary of this case from Baskin v. Berryhill

affirming the ALJ's conclusion that the plaintiff does not meet Listing 12.05 where substantial evidence supports the ALJ's finding that the plaintiff did not have an intellectual disability

Summary of this case from Edwards v. Acting Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin.

affirming finding that Listing 12.05C was not met where the plaintiff had worked skilled jobs, obtained a college degree, and had exaggerated his deficits when examined

Summary of this case from York v. Berryhill

affirming finding that Listing 12.05C was not met where the plaintiff had worked skilled jobs, obtained a college degree, and had exaggerated his deficits when examined

Summary of this case from Tubbs v. Berryhill
Case details for

Popp v. Heckler

Case Details

Full title:KENNETH E. POPP, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. MARGARET M. HECKLER, SECRETARY OF…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Date published: Jan 13, 1986

Citations

779 F.2d 1497 (11th Cir. 1986)

Citing Cases

Alberts v. Colvin

Some courts have said that the score can be questioned on the basis of "other evidence," but have not…

Richardson v. Colvin

Subpart B of Listing 12.05 demands that Mr. Richardson have an IQ of 59 or less. 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P,…