NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0483n.06 F iled: July 5, 2007 Case No. 06- 5763 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT JA M ES T. WEST , P laintif f-App ellant,
v. CO M M ISSI ON ER

SOC IA L SEC URITY ADMIN ISTRATIO N, Defendan t-Appellee.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE E ASTERN DI S TR IC T O F K

EN TU CKY

BEF ORE: BOG G S, C hie f Judg e ; B AT CH ELD ER , a nd G RI F F IN , C ir c uitJudg e s. ALICE M . BATCHEL DER, Circ uit Jud ge. Ap pe lla nt Jame s T . We st ( “ Wes t” ) a pp e a ls the dec ision of the Commi ssioner of the Socia l Security Administration (“Commissi oner” ) deny ing his application for suppleme ntal secur ity income bene fits. West arg u es t h at h e should have be en classified a s disabled under the Social Secur ity Act because (1) he suffe rs from hy pothy roidism and hear t palpitations that cause de bilitating wea kness and f

atig ue and ( 2) he m ee t s o r equals the
re qu ir e me nts of

me nta l r e tardat ion

a s d e fi ne d und e r t

he Com mis sio ne r’ s L ist ingof I mpa ir me nts
. Findingno merit in West’s arguments, we AF F IRM the Com mis sio ne r’ s d e nia l of be ne fi ts. I. J ames T. West has a se venth-g rade educa tion; he rea ds and writes at a third-g rade level; and his most recent I Q tests reve al a verba l I Q of 67, pe rfor mance I Q of 72, a

nd full-sca le I Q of 66. Be fore his phy sical health deteriorated, West worked f ull-time for the City

of Wilm ore, pe rfor

ming2

various ty

pes of maintena

nce a nd construction wor

k. In August 1998, W est beg an visiting Dr
. Thomas Coburn for his thy roid problems and i rr egu l ar hear tbeat. Ove r the ne x t few year s, Dr. Coburn presc ribed medic ine for West’s c ondition, continually alteringthe dosag e as his condition
c ha ng e d. In e arl y

20 01 , D r. Cob ur

n n ote d th a t We st’ s “ thy

ro id h a [d] [be c ome ] ve ry dif fi c ult to
mana g e [ca

us inghim to] m iss [] many

da y s o f w or k f ro m se ve re fa

tigue .” In Apri l 20 01 , b e c a us e of wor k l i mitations i mposed by his doctor, West reduce d his full-time positi on with the City of Wil more, wor

king two e ight- hour day s eac h wee k as a g arba g e truc k driver. In May 2001, West filed his app l i ca t i o n for suppleme ntal secur ity income with the Commi ssioner. Duringthe pende ncy of his application, he c ontinued treatment wit h Dr. Coburn. Thro ug ho ut t

he re ma ind e r o f 2 00 1, Wes t’ s thy ro id t e sts c on tin

ue d to sh owir

re g ula ri tie s , b ut b y A p ri l 2002, h i s t es t re s u l t s returne d to the normal ra ng e, and West indicate d that he wa s “havingmore
ener g y ” wi th

n o thy r o id s y mp to ms . InJu ly

2 0 0 2 , D r . Co b ur

nw r o te a le tt e r in d e f e n s e o f West’s disability claim, in which he stated: [Wes t] ha s a

lon g -s tand inghis tor

y of se ve re hy

po thy ro idi sm a nd pa lpi tations wi th an irre g ular he art rate.
. . . His thy roid has been very difficult to keep unde r control and this has often c aused him to mi s s wo rk
. He ha s at times had such seve re hy po thy ro idi sm that he re a lly ha d dif fi c ult y le avin g his ho us e a t a ll.
. . . I be lie ve it wo uld be ve ry dif fi c ult fo r h im t o b e e mpl oy e d w hile he is st ill tr yingto g e t hi s hy pothy roidism under control, e specia lly in l i eu [ s i c] of the fa ct that he of ten has associate d palpitations when his thy roid is uncontrolled. O v e r th e n e x tf

e wye ar s , W e s t ’ s th yr o i d

l e v e l s c o n t i nu e d

t o f l u c tu a t e e r

r a t i c a l l y. After the Commiss ioner de nied West’s disability applicat io n

in it ia ll y a n d o n rec onsideration, th e A dm i n i s tr a t i v e L a wJ u d g e ( “ A LJ ” ) h e l d a h e ar i n g o nh i s c l a i m . InS e p t e mb e r 2 0 0 2 , th e A LJ aff irmed the de nial of West’s application, finding t hat he eng ag ed in substantial g ainful ac tivity and the re fo re wa s n ot d isab led
. Th e Ap pe a ls C ounc il r e mand e d to the AL J with ins tr uc tio ns to3

r e e v a l u a t e w h e th e r W e s t w a s tr u l y e n g a g i n g i ns u

b s t an t i a l g a i n f

u l a c t i v i ty . InJ u l y

2 0 0 3 , t h e A LJ ag ain denied West’s a

pplication; this time conc luding that West was not disabled be cause he did not
su ff e r f ro m a se ve re imp a ir

me nt. Th e Ap pe a ls C ounc il d e nie d We st’ s r e qu e st fo r re vie w, and Wes t appea led to the district court. In J uly 2004, the district court found that West prese nted evidenc e of
a seve re impairme nt and re manded to the Commissioner for f urther c onsideration. Meanwhile, West filed a

nother disability application, which was also denied initially and on
re c on sid e ratio n. Th e re a ft e r, Wes t’ s tw o d isa bil ity a pp lic a tio ns we re c on so lid a te d, and the AL J hel d a joint hear ing in June 2005. Th e ALJ aga i n found that West was not disabled, conc luding that West’s hy pothy roidism was a severe phy sical i mpairment, but ref using to find that he e x perie nced
sever e “pr oblem[s] with sy mptoms of fatig ue, lethar g y , or we akness” beca use Dr. Coburn’ s treatment notes indicated that West “routinely denie[d] problems wi t h s y m p t oms of fatigue or
we akn e ss. ” B a se d in

pa rt on the inc on sis te nc ie s b etw een W est ’s stat e me nts to h is d oc tor and his repr esentations to the S ocial S ecur ity Administration, the AL J conclude d that West’s “alleg ations reg ardinghis lim itations [ wer e] not totally cre dible.” The AL J also aff orded “ littl e probative weig ht to D r. Cob ur

n’ s . . . state me nt t

hat ‘ it w ou ld b e ve ry dif

fi c ult fo r [West ] to be e mpl oy e d whi le he is still trying to g et his hy

pothy roid i s m under c ontrol.’” Af ter discountingthis medical opinion, the AL J looked to the objective e vidence of West’s activities and found that West’s ability to work two
e ig ht- ho ur

wo rk da y s e a c h w e e k and

to m a int a in a

“ fa ir ly ro bu st r e g ime n o f d a ily a c tiv iti e s” “support[ed] a finding that [ he] continue[d] to possess a re sidual functional ca pacity capa ble of perf orming significan t [ l i g ht exertion] work.” The AL J then conc luded that West “reta in[ ed] the capa city for wor k that exis ts in signific ant num bers in the national economy” and there fore did not qu a lif y a s d isa ble d und e r t

he Soc ia l Se c ur ity

Ac t.4

Turningto West’s mental deficienc ies, the AL J conclude d that West’s borderline intellec tual fu nc tio nin g and

a dju stm e nt d iso rd e r w e re se ve re imp a ir me nts b ecause “ the y

imp os e [d] mo de rate limit ati on s on

[his ] ab ili ty

to m a int a in c on c e ntr a tio n, pe rs ist e nc e , a nd pa c e .” Ev e n th ou g h th e se impairments wer e severe, the AL J found t hat W est did not meet or equal any of the Menta l Disorder L istings bec ause he did not ex h i b i t “m ar k ed” limi tations in his “daily living ac tiviti es, social fu nc tio nin g , o r a

bil ity to ma int a in atte nti on and c on c e ntr a tio n” ; he did no t in dic a te an “ ina bil ity to f un c t i o no u t s i d e o f

a h i g h l y s u p p o rt i v e l i v i n g ar

r an g e m e n t ” ; an d h e d i d

n o tp r o d u c e “ qu a l i f

yi n g IQ
score s befor e ag e 22.” West appeale d the AL J ’s opinion to the district court, and the court affirmed. West then filed
a tim e ly no tic e of a pp e a l to thi s c ourt
. II. We will uphold t he Co m missioner’s dec ision if it i s supported by substantial evidence
. W i l l b a n k s v . S e c ’ yo f H e a l th a n d H u m a n S e rv s. , 8 4 7 F.2d 301, 303 ( 6th Cir. 1988). “Substantial evidenc e is ‘more than a mer e scintilla. I t means such rele vant evidenc e as a r easona ble mind might
acc ept as adequa

te to suppor

t a conc lusion.’” Buxton v. H alter , 246 F.3d 762, 772 ( 6th Cir. 2001) (q u o t i n g Richardson v. Pe rales , 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971))
. When evaluating whe ther substantial evidenc e supports the Commissioner’s conc lusion, we must ex amine the a dminist rative r ecor d as a whole. Kir

k v . S e c ’y of H e alt h a nd Hu ma n S

e rv s. , 667 F.2d 524, 536 ( 6th Cir. 19 8 1 ). “I f the [C ommissi oner’ s] decision is s upp o rt ed by substantial evidence , it must be af firmed e ven if the
re vie wi ng c ourt wo uld de c ide the matte r dif fe re ntl y , a nd e ve n if su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e a lso su pp or ts the opposite conc lusion.” Cut lip v . S e c ’y of H e alt h a nd Hu ma n S e rv s. , 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994) (inter

nal citations omitted).5

Th e AL J’s t a sk

is t o de te rm ine wh e the r a c la ima nt is dis a ble d un de r the Soc ia l Se c ur ity Ac t. “Disability ” for

Social Security

purposes is def

ined as “ the inability

to do any

substantial ga inful activity by rea son of any

medically

det er m i n able phy sical or menta l impairment which ca n be expected to re sult in death or which ha s lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of
no t le ss t ha n 1 2 mo nth s. ” 20 C. F.R
. § 40 4. 15 05 (a ). “ In d e te rm ini ngwh e the r t he c la ima nt i s disabled, the [AL J ] wil l look at all materia l fac ts.” W alk e r v . S e c ’y of H e alt h a nd Hu ma n S e rv s. , 980 F.2d 1066, 1070 ( 6th Cir. 1992). III . West argues that the objective medical testing evidenc e and Dr. Coburn’s me dical opinion uniformly support a findingof disab ling we akness a nd fatigue, and the AL J err ed in re lying on
no np ro bativ e , no n- me dic a l op ini on e vid e nc e to fi nd he wa s no t dis a ble d. We re

je c t thi s argume nt, first, bec ause the medical e vidence does not uniform l y s u p p o rt a disability finding , and sec ond, beca use the non-me dical opinion evidenc e relied upon by the AL J — West’s own char acte rization of his sy mptoms as contained in Dr. Coburn’ s treatment notes — is hig hly probative of the issue of West’s weakne ss and fatigue
. We beg in with

D r . Co burn’s medic al opinion. “The me dical opinion of the tre ating phy sician is to be g iven substantial defe renc e — and, if that opinion is not contra dicted, complete defe renc e must be given.” W

alker , 980 F.2d at 1070. “The [C ommissi oner], howeve r, is not bound by treating phy sicians’ opinions, espec ially when ther e is substantial medical evidenc e to the contra ry .” Cut lip , 25 F .3 d at 28 7; accord Boglev. Sullivan, 998 F. 2 d 3 4 2 , 3 4 7 -48 (6th C ir. 1993); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)( 2). The Commissioner may reje ct a tre ating phy sician’s de terminations “whe n g ood
rea sons are identified for

not acc epting them.” Hall v. Bowen , 837 F.2d 272, 276 ( 6th Cir. 1988).6

In this case, Dr . Coburn wrote that “it would be ver y difficult for [W est] to be employ ed while he is stil l trying to g et his hy

pothy roidism under control[.]” This is not a spec ific, medica lly supported op ini on on the natur e and

se ve ri ty of Wes t’ s imp a ir

me nts ; r a the r i t is an a sse ssm e nt o n th e ult imate iss ue of wh e the r We st c ou ld c on tin ue to w or k w ithhis me dic a l c on dit ion. W e hav e re pe a te dly reje cted suc h conclusory

statements from tre ating phy sicians. See, e .g. , Ho us ton v . Se c ’y of H e alt h

an d H um an Se rv

s. , 736 F.2d 365, 367 (6th Cir. 1984) (holding that a “ brief c onclusory letter fr om [cl a ima nt’ s] tre a tin g phy sic ian[] wa s not dis po sit ive of the [dis a bil ity] iss ue ” ); Cut lip , 25 F.3d at 287 (r e je c tin g the op ini on s o f t

re a tin g phy sic ians be c a

us e “ the y we re c on c lus or

y and inc on sis te nt w ith the other e vidence ”). Mor eover , beca use “the [ul timate] determination of disability is t he prer og ativ e o f

th e [C o mm is s io n e r ], n o t t h e tr e a ti n g p h y s ic ia

n , ” w e n e e d

n o t a c c e p t D r . Co b u r

n ’s opinion on this issue. Houston , 7 36 F .2 d at 36 7; se e als o 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)
. In addition to be ing conclusory , Dr. Coburn’s opinion is contradicted by substantial medical evidenc e, includingthe opinions of virtually ever y other doctor who has re viewed West’s tre atment history
. In May 2001, Dr. J ames T. Ramsey revie wed West’s me dical rec ords and c oncluded that West was “tre ated suc cessf ully ” for hy

pothy roidism and his condition was “ not expected to preve nt . . . work re lated ac tivity .” At lea st t wo other c onsulting phy sicians similarly found West’s hy pothy roidism-relate d impairments to be less than s ever e. While reports fr om treatingphy sicians g ener ally are g iven more weig ht tha n repor ts from consulting phy sicians, see Kir k, 667 F.2d at 536, the Commiss ioner may

reje ct conc lusory

trea ting-p h y s i ci an o p i n i o n s i nfa v o r o f c o n s u l t i n g-p h y s i ci an opinions that are supported by substantial evidence
. See H ardaway v. Sec ’y of He alth and Human Se rv s. , 823 F.2d 922, 927 ( 6th Cir. 1987) (discounting the treating phy sician’s opinion a nd finding that th e re wa s su

bs tanti a l e vid e nc e to s up po rt the Com mis sio ne r’ s d e nia l of dis a bil ity be ne fi ts7

beca u s e “ o th e r c o n s u lt in g p h y s ic ia n s h a [d ] c o n c lu d e d th a t [th e c la im an t w a s ] s ti ll c a pable of working ”). Dr. Coburn’s opinion is also contra dicted by We s t ’s o wn statements as c ontained in Dr. Coburn’s treating notes. I n April 2002, West indicated that he had “ no” thy roid sy mptoms and was “now having mor e ene rg y .” In J uly 2002, West “[r] eporte d that his thy roid seem[ed] to be under dece n t control[.] ” In Dec ember 2003, West stated that his “[t ]hy roid sy mptoms ha[ d] been under g oo d c on tr ol .
. . [an d] [ h] e [ was ] in g oo d h e a lthand ha [d] no c on c e rn s. ” In Augus t 20 04 , We st informed Dr . Coburn that even thoug h he wa s experiencing thy roid sy mptoms i ncluding fatigue, he
ma int a ine d “ g oo d thy

ro id c on tr ol, ” wa s “ [i]n g oo d h e a lthfo r t he mos t pa

rt ,” and wa s “ do ingwe ll at [his part-time] j o b
. ” We find that the AL J did not err in re fusing to give probative w eig ht to a treating phy sician’s opinion that is contradic ted by statements from the c laimant himself. See W right v. Sullivan , N o. 91 -5 99 2, 19 92 WL75 21 8, a t *5 (6 th C ir . Apr il 1 5, 19 92 ) ( re fu sin g to c re dit a p h y s i ci an ’s as s es s m en to f t h e cl ai m an t ’s co n d i t i o nb ec au s e i t“w as s u p p o rt edb y

n o cl i n i ca l fi n d i n gs and [it was] contra dicted by claimant’s own statements”). Havingfou n dDr. Coburn’s opinion unper suasive, we turn next t o the objective me dical evidenc e, which c onsists of W est’s thy roid test results. This objective evidence consistently shows (w iththe e xce pti on

of te st res ul ts in Ap ri l 20 02 ) t hat We st’ s thy

ro id- sti mul a tin g ho rm on e le ve ls
wer e out of the normal rang e, but this evidenc e alone does not demonstrate the seve rity of West’s purported w eakne ss and fatigue
. A claimant seeking to establish disability from weakness or fatigue must int roduce both objective evide nce a nd su b j ec t i v e co m plaints. See Buxton , 246 F.3d at 773 (q uo tin g 42 U. S.C. § 4 23 (d )( 5) (a )) ; se e als o 20 C.F .R. § 4 04 .1 52 9( c )( 1) (“ In ev a luatin g the int e ns ity and per sist en ce o f
. . . sy mptoms, [ the Commiss ioner] consider[s] all of the available e vidence ,8

in c lu d in g [c la im a

n t’ s ] h is to r

y , th e s ign s an d

la b o r ato r y f in d in g s , an d

s tate me n ts f

r o m [ c la im an t]
. . . .”). The AL J reje cted West’s subjective c omplaints of limi tations from we ak n ess and fatig ue, fi nd ingthat su c h all egation s w e re “ no t to ta lly c re dib le ,” and

Wes t ha s n ot c ha lle ng e d th e se
cre d i b i l i t y fi ndings on a ppeal. See Gaffney v . Bowen , 825 F.2d 98, 101 ( 6th Cir. 1987) (ac knowledg ing that “the dete rmination of cr edibility related to subje ctive complaints of pain [and fatigue ] re st[s ] wit

h th e AL J”) . B e c a

us e Wes t has no t est a

bli sh e d the su

bje c tiv e c omp on e nt of

his disabling f

atig ue, he c annot succ eed on this ar g umen t , re gar d l ess of what the objective medic al evidenc e demonstrates. We theref ore af fi rm the AL J ’s finding that West did not suffe r fr om disabling w eakne ss and fatigue
. IV. Wes t ne xt ar g ue s th a t th e AL J er re d b y fi nd ingthat he did no t mee t or eq ua l Sec tio n 1 2. 05 (C ) of the Social Sec urity

Administration’s L isting of I mpairments, which de fines mental r etar dation. L ist ing12 .0 5( C) pr ov ide s: Mental re tardation refe rs to sig nificantly subaver ag e g ener al intellectual f unctioning with deficits in adaptive f unctioning initially

mani fested dur ing the developmenta l p e r i o d ; i
. e . , t h e e v i d e n c e d e m o n s tr a t e s o r s u p p o rt s o n s e to f

th e i mp a i r

m e n tb e f o r e age 22. The re quired leve l of sever ity for this disorder is met whe n . . . (C) [The claimant has demonstrated] a valid verba l, pe rfor mance , or full scale I Q of 60 throug h 70 and a phy sical or other mental impairment imposing an a dditional and s ign if ic an t w o r k

- r e late d li mi tati o no f

f un c ti o n [. ]” 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, S u b p t
. P , App. 1, § 12.05(C). In essenc e, then, a claimant must make thre e showing s to satisfy

L isting 12.05(C): (1) he experienc es “sig nificantly s u b av er age ge nera l intellectual func tioning with def icits in adaptive func tioning [that] ini t i all y manifested dur ing the9

developmenta l period” (i.e., the diag nostic descr iption); (2) he has a “ valid verba l, perfor mance , or full scale I Q o f 6 0 throug h 70”; and ( 3) he suf fer s from “a

phy sical or other

mental impairment imposing an a dditional and signific ant work- related limitation of function.” Id. Se e als o Foster v. Ha rri s , 279 F.3d 348, 354- 55 (6th Cir. 2001); 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, S ubpt. P, App. 1, § 12.00(A). The AL J found that West ha d not satisfied the first element — the diag nostic descr iption of mental re tardation — because he did not produce a qualify ing I Q score befor e ag e 22 and he did not de mon str a te de fi c its in a da pti ve fu nc tio nin g . We be g in w ith the AL J’s imp lie d re qu ir e me nt t hat a claimant must introduce a qualifying I Q s core befor e ag e 22 to satisfy the diag nostic descr iption of
me nta l re tard a tio n. W hi le t he cla ima nt may us e a qu a lif yingI Q s c or e be fo re the a g e of 22 to de mon str a te that hi s su bave ra g e int e lle c tua l f

un c tio nin g ini tia lly

manif e sted duri nghis developmenta l period, see Daniels v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec

. , 70 F. App’ x 868, 873 (6th Cir. 2003) (u np ub lis he d d e c isi on ), a

c la ima nt i s b y no me ans r equir ed

to produce an I Q score obtained prior to a g e 22. Thus, the AL J err ed to the extent he implied that the claimant must p ro d u ce s u ch evidenc e. We ne verthe less aff

irm the AL J ’s decision beca use West introduce d absolutely no evidenc e that he experienc ed def

iciencie s at all in “ adaptive functioning ,” let alone that any such def iciencie s
arose during the developmenta l period. See F oster , 279 F.3d at 355; Car ma c k v . B ar nh ar t , 1 47 F. Ap p’ x 557 , 5 60 -6 1 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 5) (u

np ub lis he d o pin ion ). Ada pt iv e fu nc tio nin g inc lud e s a claimant’s e ffe ctiveness in ar eas suc h as social skills, communication, and daily living skills. See Heller v. Doe by

Doe , 509 U.S. 312, 329 (1993). The AL J found that West did not ex hibit “marked” limit ations in his “daily

living ac tiviti es, social f unct i o n i n g, o r ability

to maintain attention and
c on c e ntr a tio n, ” and

that We st d id n ot d e mon str a te an “ ina bil ity to f un c tio n o ut si de of

a highlyW es t u r g es u s t o i g n or e compl et el y M r . B al dwi n ’ s e v al u at i on , c on t en di n g t h at M r . B al dwi n i s “ n ot 1 cr edi bl e, ” i s “ not a ps y chol ogi s t , ” a nd i s “ not an ac cept abl e medi cal s our ce. ” O t her t han bal d as s er t i ons , W es t ha s n o t p ro v id e d leg a l au tho rity ind ic a ting w h y w e sh o u ld reje c t M r. B a ld w in’s te st re su lts. T h e b a sis fo r W e st’s as s er t i on t h at M r . B al dwi n i s n ot a ps y ch ol og i s t or a n a cc ept abl e medi ca l s ou r ce i s n ot a t a l l c l ea r f r om t h e r ec or d, whi ch shows t hat B al d wi n has a m ast er’ s d egree, i s a co nsul t ant wi t h “ P sy cho l o gi cal A ss o ci at es, Lt d
. , ” and und ert o o k t he co nsul t at i ve exam i nat i o n at t he reque st of t he C o m m i ss i o ner. W e f ai l t o s ee why t he A LJ s ho ul d have ent i rel y i gno red M r. B al d wi n’ s eval uat i o n, and , i n any event , t he A LJ did no t rel y on M r. B al d wi n’ s eval uat i o n, but on l y me n t i on ed i t i n a f oot n ot e, c h oos i n g i n s t ea d t o “ g r an t [ ] mor e pr obat i v e we i g h t ” t o D r . D u n n ’ s r epor t be ca u s e of h is “su p e rio r c re d e n tials a n d m o re re c e n t t e sting .” 10 su pp or tiv e liv ingarr ang e me nt. ” Sub sta nti a l evi de nc e su

pp or ts the AL J’s co nc lus ion that We st d id not experience defic iencies in adaptive f unctioning. Prior to the de terioration of his phy sical hea lth, Wes t he ld a

lon g -t e rm , f

ull -t ime po sit ion

wi th t he City of Wilmo re , d e mon str a tin g his a bil ity to interac t socially

on a daily

basis. Even a fter his he alth diminis hed, West continu ed t o drive a g arb a g e tr uc k o n a pa rt -t ime ba sis , to c are fo r h is d a ily ne e ds , to pa

y bil ls, to sh op fo r gro c e ri e s, to int e ra c t w ithfr ie nd s and

fa mil ie s, and

to e ng a g e in n

ume ro us oth e r d a ily

a c tiv iti e s. The medic al evidenc e also supports the AL J ’s conclusion. Both Mr. I .T. Ba ldwin and Dr. Ga r y D u n n p e r f o r me d p s yc h ologic al examinations of West, and neither diag nosed him with any form of mental re tardation. I n fac t, Mr. Ba ldwin did not diagnose West with any mental disorder , and 1 Dr. Dunn’ s evaluation reve aled only border line intellectual functioning and adjustment disorder, not mental r etar dation. Dr. Dunn’ s repor t specifica lly

discussed ar eas impac ting on West’s ada ptive fu nc tio nin g , n oti ngthat We st “ a pp e ar[e d] to be c a

pa ble of un de rs tand ingand

re ta ini ngsim

ple instructions” and “ maintaining c oncentr ation and attention skills necessa ry to complete basic tasks in a work e nvironment.” Dr . Dunn also indicate d that West would not have difficulty “intera cting eff ectively with c o-worke rs and supervisors” nor would he “ experience signific ant difficulty dealing wi th a re a so na ble amou nt of wo rk str e ss. ” Th is me dic a l e vid e nc e ind ic a te s th a t We st d id n ot e xhibi t defic iencies in a daptive functioning , and thus suppor ts the AL J ’s conclusion that West did not meet11

or equa l L isting 12.05(C). V. For the fore g oing rea sons, we AF F IRM the dec ision of the Commi ssioner of the Socia l Security Administration.