Robert Baker v. Carolyn W. Colvin, No. 16-2025 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Arnold and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Social Security. Substantial evidence supported the ALJ"s determinations that claimant's borderline intellectual functioning did not meet the requirements of Listing 12.05C and was not a severe impairment; the district court did not err in determining that Social Security Ruling 82-62 (Medical-Vocational Profiles Showing an Inability to Make an Adjustment to Other Work) did not apply in this case.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-2025 ___________________________ Robert K. Baker lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison ____________ Submitted: February 3, 2017 Filed: February 8, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, ARNOLD, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Robert K. Baker appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We agree with the district court that substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) determinations that Mr. Baker’s borderline intellectual functioning/mild mental retardation did not meet the requirements of Listing 12.05C, and was not a severe impairment. 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. 2007) (claimant bears burden of showing impairment is severe, i.e., that it has more than minimal effect on his ability to work, at step two of the sequential evaluation process). We also agree with the district court that Social Security Ruling (SSR) 82-63 (Medical-Vocational Profiles Showing an Inability to Make an Adjustment to Other Work) does not apply in this case. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
