Devane v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Background

Tracy Shannon Devane brought this action under the Social Security Act challenging the Commissioner’s final decision denying her application for supplemental security income. Devane had applied for benefits in October 2015, alleging disability beginning in May 2013. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Sharda Singh found that Devane had severe impairments including intellectual disorder, borderline intellectual functioning, learning disorder, pervasive developmental disorder, and autism, but found that she was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review.

At the administrative hearing, Devane testified about her work at a grocery store, participation in the Friends Network, daily activities, and need for assistance. Her mother also testified. A vocational expert testified that a person with the limitations identified by the administrative law judge could perform jobs such as sorter, packer, and cleaner. The administrative law judge determined that Devane could perform work at all exertional levels, subject to limits requiring simple, routine, repetitive, non-complex tasks, no production-rate work, and goal-oriented work.

Devane and the Commissioner submitted a joint stipulation instead of separate motions for judgment on the pleadings. Devane argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated the medical and non-medical evidence, incorrectly found that her impairments did not meet Listings 12.05 and 12.10, and adopted a residual functional capacity determination that was not supported by substantial evidence. The Commissioner argued that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s decision.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that it first reviews whether the correct legal standards were used and then reviews whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence means relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as enough to support a conclusion.

Listing 12.05

The court held that substantial evidence supported the finding that Devane did not meet Listing 12.05, which concerns intellectual disorders. The administrative law judge found moderate limitations in understanding, remembering, or applying information and in concentration, persistence, and pace, and mild limitations in interacting with others and adapting or managing oneself.

For understanding, remembering, or applying information, the administrative law judge considered Devane’s full-scale IQ score of 74, her verbal-comprehension score of 83, her school records, a consultative examiner’s opinion that she could understand and follow directions, and Devane’s testimony that she had no memory problems. The court found that evidence supported a moderate, rather than marked, limitation.

For interacting with others, the administrative law judge considered Devane’s earlier difficulties with bullying and making friends, her later friendships through the Friends Network, and observations that she was cooperative, friendly, and able to interact appropriately. The court found substantial evidence supporting the mild limitation.

For concentration, persistence, and pace, the administrative law judge considered Devane’s difficulty keeping pace in a bakery job, her ability to work as a grocery bagger at an appropriate pace, her work without a job coach for at least part of her hours, and medical and vocational evidence describing good concentration or appropriate attentiveness. The court found substantial evidence supporting the moderate limitation.

For adapting and managing herself, the administrative law judge considered Devane’s difficulties with dressing and combing her hair, her ability to function independently in other respects, her work performance, and her plans to move into an apartment with a friend. The court found substantial evidence supporting the mild limitation.

The court also found no error in the administrative law judge’s treatment of the teachers’ questionnaire, Devane’s mother’s opinion, and Dr. Tatyana Shkolnikov’s earlier report. The court noted that the teachers’ questionnaire indicated less than marked limitations, that the mother’s opinion was given great weight to the extent consistent with the record, and that the administrative law judge had discussed Dr. Shkolnikov’s report rather than disregarding it.

Residual Functional Capacity

The court rejected Devane’s challenge to the residual functional capacity determination. It found that the administrative law judge considered Devane’s supported employment, job coach, ability to work independently for part of her hours, positive feedback from supervisors, reported activities, school and vocational records, and medical opinions. The court also found no error in the administrative law judge’s evaluation of Dr. Neil Berger’s opinion.

Listing 12.10

The court also rejected Devane’s argument concerning Listing 12.10, which addresses autism spectrum disorder. The court explained that the listing required an extreme limitation in one broad area of mental functioning or marked limitations in two areas. For the same reasons discussed under Listing 12.05, the court found substantial evidence supporting the administrative law judge’s conclusion that Devane had no more than moderate limitations in the relevant areas.

Disposition

The court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Commissioner. Judge Stewart D. Aaron therefore left in place the Commissioner’s denial of Devane’s supplemental security income application.