The disability claimant was 25 years old and applied for and was denied Title XVI Supplemental Security Income benefits.
The claimant did not qualify for Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II.
She contended her severe impairments included intellectual functioning and a genetic birth defect resulting in hip joint problems and knee problems.
A hearing was held at a Social Security Office of Disability Adjudication and Review ("ODAR") and at the hearing the disability attorney argued that the claimant met a listing in that she had an IQ of 68 and had a severe physical impairment with her hip and knee.
The evidence at the disability hearing showed that Social Security's appointed psychologist thought her more intelligent than her IQ score of 68 implied, and concluded that she could function in typical work environments.
However, the evidence also showed that another psychologist concluded that the claimant could only work in sheltered workshops.
It was noted that the claimant could not use a computer, used a wheelchair and could not obtain a driver's license because she can not read the driver's test.
The past relevant work included hand-packager jobs, however, the evidence showed she was unable to maintain employment due to her need for absences and inability to keep pace.
The administrative law judge gave hypotheticals based upon light and sedentary levels of exertion to the vocational expert.
Based upon the restrictions listed by the administrative law judge the vocational expert concluded that there existed a sufficient number of jobs that the claimant could perform on a competitive basis in the regional economy.
The administrative law judge issued an unfavorable decision and the claimant appealed the decision to the Social Security Appeals Council.
After the Appeals Council affirmed the administrative law judge the claimant appealed the decision to the federal district court in Evansville, Indiana which affirmed the administrative law judge's decision.
The claimant then appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, Illinois and it reversed the denial and instructed that there be a new hearing because of the errors involving the claimant's condition and vocational abilities.
Specifically, Judge Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that the administrative law judge competed an error when he disregarded the claimant's 68 IQ score based on claim that claimant possessed greater intellect due to fact that she displayed sarcasm to examining psychologist.
Judge Posner noted that even chimpanzees have been shown to be capable of sarcasm, so even if the psychologist's opinions were correct, they had no bearing on the claimant's ability to engage in competitive employment.
Judge Posner also noted that administrative law judge committed error when he failed to ask the psychologist relevant question as to likelihood that claimant could ever perform non-sheltered employment tasks.
Moreover, the administrative law judge erred when he understated claimant's work-related limitations when seeking an opinion from vocational expert on jobs that the claimant could perform.
In reversing and returning the case to Social Security for a new hearing, Judge Posner concluded that the administrative law judge failed to consider the combination of claimant's impairments when determining that claimant could do sedentary work or move out of parent's home and work outside her geographic area of Evansville, Indiana.
The Browning v.
Colvin case highlights the problems that disability lawyers have with vocational evidence in Social Security hearings.
The claimant had severe impairments resulting in an inability to walk effectively (she required the use of a wheel chair with extend activity) which in combination with her severely low IQ of 68 should have qualified her for Social Security disability benefits pursuant to Social Security Listing 12.
05(C).
Listing 12.
05(C) provides that a claimant is automatically disabled at Step 3 of the 5 Step Sequential Process with evidence of a full scale IQ of 60 through 70 and a physical or other mental impairment imposing an additional and significant work-related limitation of function.
In the case at hand, the evidence showed the claimant met or equaled a listing.
This case puts Social Security on notice that decisions based upon questionable vocational evidence will be reversed on appeal.
Statistics show that many Social Security disability cases are summarily denied.
This case puts Social Security on notice that decisions that rely upon questionable vocational evidence will be reversed on appeal.