Bailey v. Apfel, 99-1851EA
| Decision Date | 13 September 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-1851EA,99-1851EA |
| Parties | (8th Cir. 2000) Billy Bailey, Appellant, v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Appellee Submitted: |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, LAY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.
Billy Bailey appeals the District Court's order affirming the denial of supplemental security income. We reverse.
At a September 1996 hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ), Bailey testified that he suffers from a learning disability, has a speech impediment, and cannot read and write. Prior to the hearing, Bailey took a variety of tests, the results of which show he is mildly retarded and suffers from a severe articulation disorder. Following the hearing, the ALJ concluded the results of these tests were not credible, gave no substantial weight to Bailey's medical records, and concluded Bailey did not suffer from a listed impairment. Applying the factors set forth in Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984), the ALJ found Bailey's subjective allegations of mental retardation were inconsistent with his skilled work history, his demeanor at the hearing, and his daily activities; and were undercut by his ability to obtain unemployment benefits, maintain an independent living while his wife was institutionalized, and comply with probation requirements. The ALJ concluded Bailey could return to his past relevant work of painting and construction work.
We review the ALJ's decision to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, that is, relevant evidence that a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support the conclusion. See Holz v. Apfel, 191 F.3d 945, 947 (8th Cir. 1999). The ALJ must apply a sequential analysis to determine if a claimant is disabled, specifically whether the claimant is not currently working and has a severe impairment; whether this impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; if not, whether the impairment prevents the claimant from returning to his past relevant work; and, if so, whether the impairment prevents the claimant from performing other work in light of his age, education, and past work experience. See 20 C.F.R. 416.920 (1999). We conclude that Bailey's mental retardation, coupled with his speech disorder, meets listing 12.05C, which requires a "valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 60 through 70 and a physical or other mental impairment imposing additional and significant work-related limitation of function." See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, 12.05C (1999).
Bailey's results from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R) show he has a verbal intelligence quotient (IQ) of 63, performance IQ of 68, and full scale IQ of 64. We believe the ALJ erred in discrediting these scores. The WAIS-R is accepted as a means of testing mental retardation. The clinical psychologist and licensed psychological examiner who administered and interpreted the test, Dr. Samuel Hester and Mr. Larry Lawrence, were qualified to do so, and their report contains a narrative description of their clinical findings. Consulting physician Dr. Kathryn Gale reviewed and accepted Dr....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kliment v. Astrue, C 09-4030-MWB
...ability to work:The Commissioner argues that Ms. Jones's speech impairment is not so severe as that of the claimant in Bailey v. Apfel, 230 F.3d 1063 (8th Cir.2000), a similar case cited and distinguished by the District Court. This may well be true. The question before us, however, is not ......
-
Winfrey v. Astrue
...1, § 112.00(D)(9). 13.The Court notes that the WAIS-III test is an acceptable tests to determine a claimant's IQ. See Bailey v. Apfel, 230 F.3d 1063, 1065 (8th Cir. 2000) (referring to the predecessor test, WAIS-R, which was given to Plaintiff when in school). 14.The Court notes that Plaint......
-
Cousino v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
...and his mental impairment(s) manifested before the age of 22. Markle v. Barnhart, 324 F.3d 182, 187 (3d Cir. 2003); Bailey v. Apfel, 230 F.3d 1063, 1065 (8th Cir. 2000). The ALJ found that Cousino's mental impairments did not meet or medically equal Listing 12.05C for three principal reason......
-
Rineholt v. Astrue
...the finding of mental retardation, an ALJ may be in error to reject IQ scores that support such a finding. See e.g. Bailey v. Apfel, 230 F.3d 1063, 1065-66 (8th Cir.2000). For example, in Brown v. Secretary of Health and Human Serv., the Sixth Circuit concluded that the Secretary had not de......
-
Case Index
...White v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. , 572 F.3d 272 (6th Cir. July 13, 2009), 6th-09 § 312.9. Evaluation of Mental Retardation Bailey v. Apfel , 230 F.3d 1063 (8th Cir. Oct. 16, 2000), 8th-00 Banks v. Massanari , 258 F.3d 820 (8th Cir. July 30, 2001), 8th-01 Browning v. Colvin , 766 F.3d 702 (7th C......
-
Issue topics
...say this scenario constitute[d] a work-related limiting function that [was] more than slight or minimal.” Id . Followed Bailey v. Apfel , 230 F.3d 1063, 1066 (8th Cir. 2000) (holding that the claimant’s articulation disorder qualified as another impairment causing additional, significant wo......
-
Issue Topics
...say this scenario constitute[d] a work-related limiting function that [was] more than slight or minimal.” Id . Followed Bailey v. Apfel , 230 F.3d 1063, 1066 (8th Cir. 2000) (holding that the claimant’s articulation disorder qualified as another impairment causing additional, significant wo......
-
Table of cases
...535, 538 (D. Md. 1999) , aff’d, Bailey v. Apfel, 255 F.3d 653 (Table) (4th Cir. July, 2000), §§ 407.1, 409.6, 410.7 Bailey v. Apfel , 230 F.3d 1063, 1065 (8th Cir. 2000), 8th-00, §§ 1312.9, 312.12 Bailey v. Chater , 68 F.3d 75, 79 (4th Cir. 1995), §§ 209.3, 1209.3 Baily v. Sullivan , 885 F.......