20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, 12.05. Section 12.05 provides that the required level of severity for mental retardation is met with “a valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 59 or less.” “The Secretary . . . expressly singled out individuals with Mild Mental Retardation for special treatment in determining entitlement to disability benefits.” Brown v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 948 F.2d 268 (6th Cir. 1991). Per Listing 12.05, the claimant must prove that he exhibited significantly sub average general intellectual functioning with deficits in adaptive functioning that initially manifested during the developmental period (before age 22). However, “there is a presumption that mental retardation is a condition that remains constant throughout life.” Hodges v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2001). Thus, a claimant “need not present evidence that she manifested deficits in adaptive functioning prior to age 22 when she had offered evidence of low IQ test scores after age 22.” Id. The requirement that mental retardation or low IQ beginning before age 22 is met when nothing in the record reflects an incident in which the claimant suddenly became mentally retarded. Lowery v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1992). In other words, the claimant is entitled to a presumption that his intellectual limitations began before age 22.
If a claimant satisfies the listing criteria he is to be found disabled per se. Todd v. Apfel, 8 F.Supp.2d 747, 754 (W.D. Tenn. 1998); Johnson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Services, 794 F.2d 1106 (6th Cir. 1986). A claimant who is not currently engaged in substantial gainful activity who has an impairment that meets or equals a listing is entitled to disability benefits. Durham v. Apfel, 34 F.Supp.2d 1373, 1381 (N.D. Ga. 1998). Even if the claimant worked previously with the severe impairment that meets or equals a listing, he/she is still entitled to a finding of disability. Id.
“A claimant whose impairment meets a listing is disabled when not working, even if he or she worked in the past with the impairments, and even if he or she could return to his or her past work.” Ambers v. Heckler, 736 F.2d 1572, 1576 (11th Cir. 1985). As succinctly stated by the 6th Circuit, “if a claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity and also validly meets a listing, the Secretary must find claimant disabled without regard to residual work capacity, age, education, or experience. It is not correct under the regulatory scheme to find that a claimant satisfies a listing but is nonetheless able to work.” Johnson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 794 F.2d 1106 (6th Cir. 1986).
If you need assistance with your disability claim, call The Hamilton Firm.