McIntosh v. Barnhart

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
March 27, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 05-30580
Summary Calendar
_____________________
JOHN E. MCINTOSH, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
__________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:04-CV-1020
_________________________________________________________________
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant McIntosh claims error in the Commissioner’s denial
of Social Security disability insurance benefits and supplemental
security income based on the finding that McIntosh is “not
disabled.” McIntosh argues specifically that the ALJ failed to
consider record evidence that McIntosh suffers from either an
“organic mental disorder” (Listing 12.02) or “chronic affective
disorder” (Listing 12.04), either of which would qualify him for
benefits and supplemental income.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
On appeal, we review the record for substantial evidence
supporting the finding that McIntosh is “not disabled.” Carey v.
Apfel, 230 F.3d 131, 135 (5th Cir. 2000). After reviewing the
record, we affirm for the reasons articulated by the District
Court, namely:
1. McIntosh did not meet the threshold requirement of
Listing 12.02 that the claimant show a medically
documented history of a chronic organic mental disorder.
As the District Court wrote, the record evidence at best
suggests the mere possibility of such a disorder; it is
far from demonstrative of one.
2. Assuming McIntosh met the threshold requirement for
either or both Listing 12.02 and Listing 12.04, he has
failed to satisfy any of the three additional criteria.
a. McIntosh has not proved “repeated episodes of
decompensation, each of extended duration.” The
District Court correctly held that the personality
conflicts that occasionally led to McIntosh’s job
losses do not rise to the level of a loss of
adaptive functioning sufficient to constitute an
episode of decompensation.
b. McIntosh has not proved “a residual disease process
that has resulted in such marginal adjustment that
even a minimal increase in mental demands or change
in the environment would be predicted to cause the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
individual to decompensate.” Evaluations
suggesting that McIntosh is better suited to
independent rather than group work are insufficient
to meet this demanding standard.
c. McIntosh has not proved a “current history of one
or more years’ inability to function outside a
highly supportive living arrangement, with an
indication of continued need for such an
arrangement.” The District Court correctly noted
that McIntosh, despite living with his parents,
“appears to have taken care of almost all of his
personal needs and made substantial contributions
to the household without a high degree of
supervision.”
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --