Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security
D.C. No. 1:10-cv-01997-JLT (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Social Security intellectual disability cases, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) has a special duty to fully and fairly develop the record, which includes ensuring the record contains a complete set of valid IQ scores (verbal, performance, and full scale). A failure to do so constitutes a legal error that is reversible unless it is clearly harmless.
Facts:
- As a minor, Stephanie Garcia received social security benefits for an intellectual disability.
- After turning 18, the Social Security Administration (SSA) determined she was no longer disabled.
- Garcia had earned a high school diploma from special education classes but was unable to read and did not know the alphabet.
- She worked at a pizza shop for several months but quit because the work was 'too hard' and required constant supervision for tasks like making pizzas and taking orders.
- Garcia then worked a clerical job for two months, which involved photocopying and alphabetizing, but also quit because it was 'too hard' and she needed help from a coworker to understand her tasks.
- Psychologist Dr. McDonald evaluated Garcia and administered only the performance portion of the WAIS-III IQ test, citing time constraints.
- This partial test yielded a performance IQ score of 77 but did not produce a verbal or full-scale IQ score.
- Two other consulting experts reviewed Garcia's records, including the incomplete IQ test results, and concluded she had limitations but could perform simple, routine jobs.
Procedural Posture:
- The Social Security Administration (SSA) determined that Stephanie Garcia was no longer disabled upon turning 18.
- Garcia requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).
- On May 18, 2010, the ALJ issued a decision finding Garcia was not disabled.
- Garcia appealed to the Social Security Administration Appeals Council, which denied her request for review, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner.
- Garcia sought judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision in the U.S. District Court.
- The district court affirmed the decision of the Commissioner.
- Garcia, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with the Commissioner as appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) commit a reversible legal error by failing to develop the record with a complete set of IQ test scores when making a disability determination for an intellectual disability claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Murguia, Circuit Judge
Yes. An ALJ commits a reversible legal error by failing to develop the record with a complete set of IQ scores. The court reasoned that the ALJ has a 'special duty to fully and fairly develop the record.' Social Security regulations establish that standardized intelligence test results are 'essential' for adjudicating intellectual disability cases. The regulations, specifically Listing 12.00, contemplate the use of tests like the Wechsler series that provide verbal, performance, and full-scale IQs, and the rule requiring the ALJ to use the lowest of these scores implies that a complete set should be available. Because the claimant's IQ score can be the deciding factor, reliance on partial results is a legal error. The error was not harmless here because Garcia's prior juvenile test scores were significantly lower, creating a 'genuine probability' that a complete test could have resulted in scores that met the criteria for disability under Listing 12.05, thereby altering the outcome.
Dissenting - O'Scannlain, Circuit Judge
No. The majority misapplies the harmless error standard and disregards the deference owed to the agency. The dissent argues that for a failure-to-develop-the-record error, the burden is on the claimant to show prejudice, and a 'mere probability' of a different outcome is insufficient, citing McLeod v. Astrue. The majority improperly presumes prejudice. The ALJ's decision was based on the entire record, including Garcia's work history and other evaluations, not just the partial IQ score. Furthermore, the majority improperly makes an argument for Garcia—that she might have qualified under Listing 12.05 B—which Garcia herself never raised on appeal. This holding undermines the substantial evidence standard of review by allowing claimants to challenge otherwise supported decisions by invoking hypothetical evidence.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the affirmative duty of an ALJ to ensure a complete evidentiary record in intellectual disability claims, specifically regarding psychological testing. By holding that a partial IQ test is presumptively insufficient, the court strengthens protections for claimants and makes it more difficult for the SSA to deny benefits based on incomplete data. The ruling shifts the burden to the ALJ to seek out complete information rather than placing the onus on the claimant to prove an incomplete record was prejudicial. The dissent's strong objections highlight the continuing jurisprudential tension between judicial enforcement of procedural duties and the deferential standard of review typically afforded to administrative agency findings.
Unlock the full brief for Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security