United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Jonesboro Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Cronin applied for social security disability benefits with
an alleged onset date of August 15, 2011. (R. at 47). The
administrative law judge (ALJ) held a hearing and denied his
application (R. at 20), and the Appeals Council denied his
request for review. (R. at 1). Mr. Cronin requested judicial
review, and the court reversed and remanded the case for
further action. (R. at 412-22).
second hearing, the ALJ again denied Mr. Cronin's
application. (R. at 374). The Appeals Council again denied
review. (R. at 355). Mr. Cronin filed this case again
requesting judicial review. The parties have consented to the
jurisdiction of the magistrate judge.
The Commissioner's Decision
found that Mr. Cronin had the following severe impairments:
borderline intellectual functioning, learning delays,
schizoaffective disorder, mood disorder, personality
disorder, and an anxiety disorder. (R. at 367). The ALJ
considered Mr. Cronin's impairments under listings 12.03,
12.04, 12.08, and 12.11 and found that they did not meet or
medically equal any of those listings. (R. at 368-69).
found that Mr. Cronin had the residual functional capacity to
perform work at all exertional levels, but that he would be
limited to simple, routine, and repetitive tasks that require
only incidental interpersonal contact and simple, direct, and
concrete supervision. (R. at 25). The ALJ took testimony from
a vocational expert (VE), who testified that the RFC would
allow Mr. Cronin to perform his past relevant work as a
material mixer. (R. at 372). The VE further testified that
Mr. Cronin could perform other jobs such as dishwasher or
cook's helper. (R. at 373). The ALJ held, therefore, that
Mr. Cronin was not disabled. (R. at 373).
appeal, the Court must review the Commissioner's decision
for legal error and assure that the decision is supported by
substantial evidence on the whole record. Brown v.
Colvin, 825 F.3d 936, 939 (8th Cir. 2016) (citing
Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 929 (8th Cir.
2010)). Stated another way, the decision must rest on enough
evidence that “a reasonable mind would find it adequate
to support [the] conclusion.” Halverson, 600
F.3d at 929. The Court will not reverse the decision,
however, solely because there is evidence to support a
conclusion different from that reached by the Commissioner.
Pelkey v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 575, 578 (8th Cir.
Cronin argues that the ALJ failed to consider whether he met
the criteria for listing 12.05. He also argues that the RFC
assigned by the ALJ is not supported by substantial evidence
on the record as a whole.
record includes the results of two IQ tests administered to
Mr. Cronin. In the first, Vickie Caspall, Ph.D., found that
Mr. Cronin had a full-scale IQ of 61, verbal comprehension
score of 66, perceptual reasoning score of 67, working memory
score of 65, and processing speed score of 68. (R. at 346).
Dr. Caspall opined that the scores were not consistent with a
diagnosis of mental retardation due to other factors
affecting performance. (R. at 347-48). Nevertheless, Dr.
Caspall felt that the results were valid. (R. at 350).
second test, Kenneth Hobby, Ph.D., found that Mr. Cronin had
a full-scale IQ of 68, verbal comprehension score of 66,
perceptual reasoning score of 84, working memory score of 71,
and a processing speed score of 68. (R. at 689). Dr. Hobby
indicated that the IQ results were probably reliable and that
the overall examination was valid. (R. at 691, 696).
12.05B requires the following:
B. Satisfied by 1, 2, and 3 (see 12.00H):
1. Significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning
evidenced by a or b:
a. A full scale (or comparable) IQ score of 70 or below on an
individually administered standardized test of ...