("Wide Test"). (Tr. 278). The results of the Wide Test indicated that the plaintiff read and spelled at a grade level of 2.6 and 3.7, respectively. Id. Likewise, the plaintiff on the Weschsler Scale displayed a verbal I.Q. of 74, performance I.Q. of 79, and a full scale I.Q. of 75. Id. Clements reported that the plaintiff was functioning in the average range for perceptual motor functioning; low to average range for social judgment and common sense; and below average range for short term memory, auditory sequential memory, and eye hand coordination. Id. Diagnostically, Clements concluded that the plaintiff was functioning in the lower limits of a borderline retarded range. Id.
In addition to the mental examination, Clements performed a consultative psychiatric examination on February 19, 1992. (Tr. 279). Factually, Clements reported that the plaintiff spent a weekend as an inpatient in the local mental health unit. Id. Apparently, the plaintiff became suicidal and was acting out problems following the separation from his first wife. Id. However, after two follow-up sessions with an outpatient counselor, the plaintiff discontinued any course of psychiatric treatment and has denied the need to use psychotropic medications. Id. Clements indicated that the plaintiff admitted to having problems with authority figures including bosses and policemen. Id. Clements additionally reported that the plaintiff stated that he could do some chores around the house and engage in such social activities as talking on the CB radio, playing cards, visiting his mother, and going to Bingo. (Tr. 280). However, Clements also reported that the plaintiff evidenced no particular insight and that his judgment for situations was only fair to good. Id. Ultimately, Clements concluded that the plaintiff evidenced vocational maladjustment, borderline mental functioning, and a personality disorder that is manifested in conflicts with authority figures. Id.
On January 15, 1993, the plaintiff was interviewed by Horenstein for a psychiatric evaluation. (Tr. 282). Like Clements, Horenstein reported that the plaintiff expressed problems with authority figures. (Tr. 283). In addition, Horenstein noted that the plaintiff had been arrested many times for harassment and assault, all involving conflicts with his subsequent wife and girlfriends. Id. The plaintiff also stated that he cannot take orders from others, and that if he went back to work he would just end up getting fired. Id. Regarding plaintiff's mental status, Horenstein reported that his speech was clear with no evidence of thought disorder or confusion, and it appeared that the plaintiff had borderline intelligence. (Tr. 284). Ultimately, Horenstein concluded that plaintiff's most significant disorder involved a long standing personality disturbance. (Tr. 284). While vocational rehabilitation was a possibility, Horenstein suggested that success was unlikely because it was his position that plaintiff would not apply himself or maintain necessary self control in a work setting. Id. While the reports of Clements and Horenstein both suggest that the plaintiff's impairments present limitations, neither suggests that plaintiff is incapable of working.
In addition to the reports from Clements and Horenstein, the record contains additional evidence in the form of functional evaluations regarding plaintiff's psychological and mental limitations. However, each evaluation fails to support plaintiff's claim that he is incapable of working as a result of a mental or psychological impairment. An evaluation dated March 17, 1992, reports that plaintiff is moderately limited in his ability to accept instructions and respond appropriately to criticisms from supervisors. (Tr. 100). Although plaintiff has a borderline intelligence, the evaluation concluded that he is capable of meeting the demands of unskilled labor. (Tr. 101). Psychologically, the evaluation indicated that plaintiff displayed symptoms of an affective disorder, sub intellectual functioning, and a personality disorder. (Tr. 105-107). Despite such impairments, the evaluation further indicated that the plaintiff's degree of limitation was only slight with respect to maintaining social functioning. (Tr. 109). Similarly, a May 21, 1992 evaluation, found that the plaintiff displayed borderline intelligence without significant limitations in his understanding and memory, sustained concentration and persistence, social interaction, and adaptation. (Tr. 79-81). Again, psychologically, the evaluation indicated that the plaintiff displayed signs of sub intellectual functioning, and a personality disorder. (Tr. 82). Likewise, plaintiff's degree of limitation was listed as slight regarding daily living activities, moderate with respect to difficulties in maintaining social functioning, and often for deficiencies of concentration.
The claim that the plaintiff is disabled as a result of borderline intellectual functioning is also contradicted by plaintiffs own testimony and necessarily inconsistent with plaintiff's activities and past performance in high school. For instance, plaintiff testified that he was able to complete the twelfth grade and graduate from high school. (Tr. 38). Although he claims he cannot read or write, plaintiff possesses a driver's license and indicates that he is able to drive an automobile. (Tr. 45). In addition, while the records from plaintiff's high school confirm that he functions in the low average range, they do not suggest, as the plaintiff now claims, that he is severely limited intellectually and as a result disabled from performing work. For example, on February 10, 1987, plaintiff's school Psychologist, Myles P. Gross ("Gross"), reported that plaintiff was functioning within the dull normal to borderline range of adult intelligence. (Tr. 258). Also, Gross stated that the plaintiff demonstrated relative strengths in understanding part and whole relationships, and his approach to problem solving. Id. Gross concluded that while plaintiff had significant difficulty in all verbal tasks, he possessed good organizational skills, worked earnestly, and, if given enough time, would succeed. Id.
Given the conclusions from the evaluations of plaintiff's mental and psychological limitations; the plaintiff's testimony regarding his ability to take care of his personal needs, operate a motor vehicle, and possess a driver's license; and the opinion of the school psychologist coupled with the fact that plaintiff graduated from high school; the claim that the plaintiff possesses the capacity to work is undoubtedly supported by substantial evidence.
Finally, considering that the plaintiff's complaints of severe disabling musculoskeletal impairments are inconsistent with the findings in the record; that the allegations that he is disabled as a result of borderline intellectual functioning and a personality disorder are not supported by the psychiatric functional evaluations, plaintiff's testimony regarding his daily activities, and plaintiff's past performance in high school; the record amply supports the determination that plaintiff can perform work which includes such jobs as a surveillance monitor, laundry worker, grounds keeper, and assembly line hand packer. Nevertheless, the determination that plaintiff possesses the capacity to work is further buttressed by the testimony of the Vocational Expert, Esperanza DiStefano ("DiStefano").
DiStefano testified that she was familiar with the various exertional levels of work, the educational requirements necessary for different types of jobs, and whether particular types of work exist in significant numbers in the national economy. (Tr. 65). In addition, DiStefano indicated that she was informed of plaintiff's limited ability to read and write, his borderline intellectual functioning, and the particular mental and psychological impairments as reported by Clements. (Tr. 67). As a result, DiStefano opined that the plaintiff's personality disorder, manifested by conflicts with authority figures, would limit the number of unskilled jobs plaintiff might otherwise be capable of performing. (Tr. 68). Nevertheless, despite the limitations posed by plaintiff's personality disorder and alleged physical and mental impairments, DiStefano concluded that there were still unskilled jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy that plaintiff could perform. Id. Specifically, DiStefano testified that plaintiff was capable of performing such jobs as a surveillance monitor, laundry worker, grounds keeper, and assembly line hand packer. (Tr. 69-71).
Following a review of the medical reports from Evans, Quellman, and DSS; the consultative examinations by Clements and Horenstein; the plaintiff's testimony regarding his daily activities; plaintiff's past school performance including the fact that he was able to graduate from high school; and the testimony from the Vocational Expert; it is apparent that the ALJ's determination that the plaintiff is able to work is supported by substantial evidence.
Accordingly, the decision denying the plaintiff disability benefits is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
David N. Hurd
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: March 9, 1998
Utica, New York.