AR 98-2(8): AR 98-2 (8): Sird v. Chater , 105 F.3d 401 (8th Cir. 1997) -- Mental Retardation -- What Constitutes an Additional and Significant Work-Related Limitation of Function -- Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act.

AR 98-2 (8) (Rescinded 8/21/2000 effective 9/20/2000)

EFFECTIVE/PUBLICATION DATE: 2/24/98

Acquiescence Ruling 98-2(8)

Issue:

Whether a claimant for disability insurance benefits or Supplemental

Security Income (SSI) benefits based on disability who has mental

retardation or autism with a valid IQ score in the range covered by

Listing 12.05C, and who cannot perform his or her past relevant work

because of a physical or other mental impairment, has per se established the additional and significant work-related limitation of

function requirement of Regulations 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix

1, section 12.05C. [1]

Statute/Regulation/Ruling Citation:

Sections 223(d)(1) and 1614(a)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

423(d)(1) and 1382c(a)(3)); 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1,

section 12.05C.

Circuit:

Eighth (Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South

Dakota).

Sird v. Chater , 105 F.3d 401 (8th Cir. 1997).

Applicability of Ruling:

This Ruling applies to determinations or decisions at all administrative

levels (i.e., initial, reconsideration, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

hearing or Appeals Council).

Description of Case:

Donald Sird applied for SSI benefits based on disability on September 27,

1991. In a decision dated January 27, 1995, an ALJ found that Mr. Sird had

borderline intellectual capacity, a history of alcoholism, a history of

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and a history of urinary tract

infection. The ALJ also found that Mr. Sird had an IQ score within the

range required by Listing 12.05C but did not have "a physical or other

mental impairment imposing additional and significant work-related

limitation of function." The ALJ further found that the combination of Mr.

Sird's impairments imposed several environmental restrictions and also

functional limitations. Relying on the vocational expert's opinion that an

individual with Mr

within the

range required by Listing 12.05C but did not have "a physical or other

mental impairment imposing additional and significant work-related

limitation of function." The ALJ further found that the combination of Mr.

Sird's impairments imposed several environmental restrictions and also

functional limitations. Relying on the vocational expert's opinion that an

individual with Mr. Sird's characteristics could perform light or

sedentary work, the ALJ concluded that, although the claimant could not

perform his past relevant work, he was not disabled. After the Appeals

Council denied the claimant's request for review, he sought judicial

review but the district court upheld the Social Security Administration's

(SSA's) decision. Mr. Sird appealed this decision to the United States

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Holding:

The Eighth Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded

the case to SSA with directions to award benefits. After reviewing Eighth

Circuit case law that defined the other impairment requirement of Listing

12.05C as requiring "a physical or additional mental impairment that has a

'more than slight or minimal' effect on ability to

work" [2] and the Fourth

Circuit's holding in Branham v. Heckler , 775 F.2d 1271 (4th Cir.

1985) [3] that established the

rule that an inability to do past relevant work meets the requirement of

the Listing that the other impairment cause an additional and significant

work-related limitation of function, the court held that the Branham court's conclusion was "ineluctable."

n ability to

work" [2] and the Fourth

Circuit's holding in Branham v. Heckler , 775 F.2d 1271 (4th Cir.

1985) [3] that established the

rule that an inability to do past relevant work meets the requirement of

the Listing that the other impairment cause an additional and significant

work-related limitation of function, the court held that the Branham court's conclusion was "ineluctable."

The Eighth Circuit observed that the ALJ's finding of Mr. Sird's inability

to perform his past relevant work, assuming no change occurred in his

mental impairments after he stopped working, was inconsistent with the

ALJ's other finding that Mr. Sird did not satisfy the other impairment

requirement of Listing 12.05C because he did not have an additional

impairment that significantly limited his ability to work. The court was

not convinced that, in this particular case, there was a difference in

application between the Eighth Circuit's case law in Warren and Cook , and the Branham court's holding. The court concluded

that under either test the claimant was disabled.

Statement As To How Sird Differs From SSA's Interpretation of

the Regulations

At issue in Sird is the meaning of the term "additional and

significant work-related limitation of function" in Listing 12.05C. What

constitutes an "additional and significant work-related limitation of

function" is not defined in SSA's regulations. SSA's interpretation of the

Listing is that, if an individual has: (1) mental retardation, i.e.,

significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning with deficits in

adaptive behavior initially manifested during the developmental period, or

autism, i.e., a pervasive developmental disorder characterized by social

and significant communication deficits originating in the developmental

period; (2) a valid verbal, performance or full scale IQ in the range

specified by Listing 12.05C; and (3) a physical or other mental impairment

that is severe within the meaning of 20 CFR 404.1520(c) or 416.920

ring the developmental period, or

autism, i.e., a pervasive developmental disorder characterized by social

and significant communication deficits originating in the developmental

period; (2) a valid verbal, performance or full scale IQ in the range

specified by Listing 12.05C; and (3) a physical or other mental impairment

that is severe within the meaning of 20 CFR 404.1520(c) or 416.920(c), the

individual's impairments meet Listing

12.05C. [4] That is, to satisfy

the criteria of Listing 12.05C, the additional physical or other mental

impairment must result in more than minimal limitations in the

individual's ability to do basic work activities. The inability to perform

past work does not per se satisfy this standard.

The Sird court held that an impairment that prevents a claimant

from performing his or her past relevant work constitutes a significant

work-related limitation of function that is more than slight or minimal,

and per se meets the other impairment requirement of Listing

12.05C. [5]

Explanation of How SSA Will Apply The Sird Decision Within The

Circuit

This Ruling applies only where the claimant resides in Arkansas, Iowa,

Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota or South Dakota at the time of

the determination or decision at any administrative level of review, i.e.,

initial, reconsideration, ALJ hearing or Appeals Council.

A claimant who has: (1) mental retardation, i.e., significantly subaverage

general intellectual functioning with deficits in adaptive behavior

initially manifested during the developmental period, or autism, i.e., a

pervasive developmental disorder characterized by social and significant

communication deficits originating in the developmental period; (2) a

valid verbal, performance or full scale IQ in the range specified by

Listing 12.05C; and (3) a physical or other mental impairment that

prevents him or her from performing past relevant work, will be considered

to have a physical or other mental impairment that results i

disorder characterized by social and significant

communication deficits originating in the developmental period; (2) a

valid verbal, performance or full scale IQ in the range specified by

Listing 12.05C; and (3) a physical or other mental impairment that

prevents him or her from performing past relevant work, will be considered

to have a physical or other mental impairment that results in more than

minimal limitations in the ability to do basic work activities and to have

satisfied the requirements of Listing 12.05C.

[1] Although Sird was a

title XVI case, similar principles also apply to title II. Therefore, this

Ruling extends to both title II and title XVI disability claims.

[2] Warren v. Shalala , 29

F.3d 1287 (8th Cir. 1994) and Cook v. Bowen , 797 F.2d 687 (8th Cir.

1986). The Court of Appeals made an alternative holding in the case, and

found that, under the circumstances present in the case, the outcome would

be the same under the interpretation of the regulations set out in Warren and Cook . See 105 F.3d at 403. The court's

alternative holding in the case, relying on the interpretation of Listing

12.05C made in Warren and Cook , is not inconsistent with

SSA's interpretation of the Listing.

[3] On March 10, 1992, SSA

published Acquiescence Ruling (AR) AR 92-3(4) at 57 FR 8463 to reflect the

holding in Branham . On April 29, 1993, the AR was revised and

republished as AR 93-1(4) at 58 FR

25996 to incorporate a regulatory change regarding the IQ range included

in Listing 12.05C and to make several technical corrections.

[4] For title XVI, an individual

under age 18 shall be considered to have an impairment that meets Listing

112.05D if he or she has mental retardation, as defined above, with a

valid verbal, performance or full scale I.Q. of 60 through 70 and a

physical or other mental impairment that is severe within the meaning of

20 CFR 416.924(c).

ng 12.05C and to make several technical corrections.

[4] For title XVI, an individual

under age 18 shall be considered to have an impairment that meets Listing

112.05D if he or she has mental retardation, as defined above, with a

valid verbal, performance or full scale I.Q. of 60 through 70 and a

physical or other mental impairment that is severe within the meaning of

20 CFR 416.924(c).

[5] As noted above, the Court of

Appeals alternative holding, relying on the decisions in Warren v.

Shalala , 29 F.3d 1287 (8th Cir. 1994) and Cook v. Bowen , 797

F.2d 687 (8th Cir. 1986) is not inconsistent with SSA's interpretation of

the Listing, as explained above.