Garland Lott, Jr. v. Carolyn W. Colvin (2014)

Reed’s complete testimony regarding her daily activities, coupled with her reports to Dr. Hobby about her limited activities, is consistent with someone whose IQ scores are those reflected in the 2007 testing, See id. at 551 (ALJs could nearly always point to performance of rudimentary activities of daily living, thus making it practically impossible for non-institutionalized mentally retarded claimants to show significantly sub-average general intellectual functioning with …

Discussion “Because the Appeals Council declined review, the ALJ’s decision is the final decision of the Commissioner.” Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 548 (8th Cir. 2014).

Discussion “Because the Appeals Council declined review, the ALJ’s decision is the final decision of the Commissioner.” Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 548 (8th Cir. 2014).

We have noted that "it may be reversible error for an ALJ not to order a consultative examination when, without such an examination he cannot make an informed choice.” Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 549 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Conley v. Bowen, 781 F.2d 143, 146 (8th Cir. 1986) (per curiam)).

Id. at 548, 550-51 .

See NRDC v. EPA, 31 F.4th 1203 , 1210 (9th Cir. 2022) (relying on internal “inconsistencies” in holding that a decision was not supported by substantial evidence); Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 551 (8th Cir. 2014) (holding that a decision marked by “internal inconsistencies” was not supported by substantial evidence); Linear Tech.

Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 549 (8th Cir. 2014). -5- maintaining pace, and adapting or managing himself.

Upon de novo review, see Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 548-49 (8th Cir. 2014), we are satisfied that the decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.

Upon de novo review, see Lott v, Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 548-49 (8th Cir. 2014), we are satisfied that the decision is supported by substantial evidence on the whole record.

See Igo v. Colvin, 839 F.3d 724, 728 (8th Cir. 2016) (reviewing de novo district court’s affirmance, examining whether ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence on record as whole); Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 549-50 (8th Cir. 2014) (Listing 12.05C’s requirements); McDade v. Astrue, 720 F.3d 994, 1001 (8th Cir. 2013) (claimant bears burden of establishing that his impairment meets all specified criteria of listing); Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 707-08 (8th Cir.…

Upon de novo review, see Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 548-49 (8th Cir. 2014), we conclude that the two narrow issues Ms. Reeves identifies do not provide a basis for reversing the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) determination that she is not disabled.

The Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ’s decision, making it the final decision of the Commissioner, see, e.g., Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 548 (8th Cir.2014), and the district court affirmed.

Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 548 (8th Cir.2014); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 (a)(4), 416.920.

(ECF No. 22, PP. 5-7) “‘[T]he listings were designed to operate as a presumption of disability that makes further inquiry unnecessary.’” Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 549 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 532 (1990)). “‘That is, if an adult is not actually working and his impairment matches or is equivalent to a listed impairment, he is presumed unable to work and is awarded benefits without a determination whether he actually can perform his own pri…

(ECF No. 18) “‘[T]he listings were designed to operate as a presumption of disability that makes further inquiry unnecessary.’” Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 549 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 532 (1990)). “‘That is, if an adult is not actually working and his impairment matches or is equivalent to a listed impairment, he is presumed unable to work and is awarded benefits without a determination whether he actually can perform his own prior work o…

The Commissioner counters that the ALJ did not err at step three because she found that “the record did not establish ineffective ambulation, which was needed to satisfy several [musculoskeletal] listings including Listing 1.03.” [ECF No. 25 at 5] “[T]he listings were designed to operate as a presumption of disability that makes further inquiry unnecessary.” Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 549 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 532 (1990)).

(ECF No. 15, PP. 4-7). “‘[T]he listings were designed to operate as a presumption of disability that makes further inquiry unnecessary.’” Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 549 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 532 (1990)).

See, e.g., Scott v. Berryhill, 855 F.3d 853, 856-57 (8th Cir. 2017) (discussing special education classes, failure to complete high school, history of unskilled and semi-skilled work, reading ability, communication ability, and ability to perform daily activities); Maresh v. Barnhart, 438 F.3d 897, 900 (8th Cir. 2006) (discussing frequent fights with other children, struggling in special education classes, and dropping out of school in the ninth grade); Lott v. Colvin, 772 F…

“To establish equivalency, a claimant must present medical findings equal in severity to all the criteria for the one, most similar, listed impairment.” Id. “[M]erely being diagnosed with a condition named in a listing and meeting some of the criteria will not qualify a claimant for presumptive disability under the listing.” Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 549 (8th Cir. 2014). 8 Here, the ALJ properly discussed the applicable listings—namely, listings 1.15 and 1.16 for Plainti…

An impairment that manifests only some of the listing criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.” Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 549 (8th Cir. 2014) (cleaned up).

When a claimant “wins at the third step . . . [she] must be held disabled, and the case is over.” Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 549 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Jones v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 697, 699 (8th Cir. 2003)).

Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 549 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting McCoy, 648 F.3d at 611-12 ; Kemper v. Colvin, No. 4:12 CV 2367 DDN, 2014 WL 1228910 , at *12 (E.D.

Cf. Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 549 (8th Cir. 2014) (mere diagnosis of condition named in listing does not qualify claimant for presumptive disability). 4.

In rebuttal, Petitioner cites Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 551-52 (8th Cir. 2014) for the proposition that an ALJ must obtain medical opinions to address equivalence.

R. at 395-98. “[T]he ALJ bears a responsibility to develop the record fairly and fully, independent of the claimant’s burden to press his case.” Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 549 (8th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted).

See Lott, 772 F.3d at 551 .

See Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 549-50 (8th Cir. 2014) (outlining requirements for Listing 12.05C).

See Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 548-49 (8th Cir.2014).

See Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 548-49 (8th Cir.2014) (de novo review).

See Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 548-49 (8th Cir.2014).

See Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 548-49 (8th Cir.2014); see also Myers v. Colvin, 721 F.3d 521, 527 (8th Cir.2013) (considerations in RFC determination); Martise v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 909, 928 (8th Cir.2011) (it is claimant’s burden to establish RFC).

See Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 548 (8th Cir.2014).

See McCoy v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 605, 611-12 (8th Cir. 2011); see also Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 549 (8th Cir. 2014).

See Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 548 (8th Cir. 2014).

See, e.g., Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 551 (8th Cir. 2014) (reversing ALJ decision where record did not contain “essential” test for determining whether claimant met listed impairment); Louise W. v. Berryhill, No. 17-cv- 4973 (SRN/KMM), 2019 WL 404038 , at *4-5 (D.

See Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546 , 550–52 (8th Cir. 2014).

Compare Cheatum, 388 F. App’x at 576-77 (finding Plaintiff’s “Borderline Intellectual Functioning,” work history, and daily activities did not establish deficits in adaptive functioning necessary to meeting Listing 12.05C) with Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 551-52 (8th Cir. 2014) (remanding to resolve inconsistencies in the ALJ’s opinion and medical opinion evidence where the record did not contain an IQ score, but the ALJ found Plaintiff suffered from the “severe impairment…

See Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 549 (8th Cir.2014) (“[I]t may be reversible error for an ALJ not to order a consultative examination when, without such an examination, [s]he cannot make an informed choice.” (quoting Conley v. Bowen, 781 F.2d 143, 146 (8th Cir.1986) (per curiam))); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.917 (explaining that an ALJ may order additional testing if necessary to determine if the claimant is disabled).