before age twenty-two as required by Listing 12.05(C). Acknowledging the lack of IQ evidence before age twenty-two, Hodges asserts that absent evidence of sudden trauma that can cause retardation, the IQ tests create a rebuttable presumption of a fairly constant IQ throughout her life. We agree. Other appellate courts have recognized this presumption finding that IQ’s remain fairly constant throughout life. See Muncy v. Apfel, 247 F.3d 728, 734 (8th Cir.2001) (“Mental retardation is not nor- mally a condition that improves as an affected person ages.... Rather, a person’s IQ is presumed to remain stable over time in the absence of any evidence of a change in a claimant’s intellectual functioning.”); Luckey v. U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 890 F.2d 666, 668 (4th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). The Eleventh Circuit has not formally
holding that adea plaintiff had failed to make a prima facie case of age discrimination when he was replaced by someone only two years younger and within the protected age group and there was no other evidence of age discriminatory motive holding that to make out the fourth element of a prima facie case of sex discrimination plaintiff must prove that males remained in similar positions and similarly for age discrimination that she was otherwise discharged because of her age holding that absent specific evidence indicating otherwise va is presumed to have reviewed all evidence in the record when making a determination as to service connection holding that the statement at your age i dont believe you could pass the test is not direct evidence of age discrimination holding absence of iq test in developmental years did not preclude finding of mental retardation predating age twentytwo and courts should assume an iq remained constant absent evidence indicating change in intellectual functioning