by the DOT as involving very limited reasoning skills. Therefore, it is not inconsistent with a low level of intellectual functioning. In addition, plaintiffs work history was not extensive. He was 39 years old when the ALJ issued his decision. The evidence of record indicated that he had worked for a total of about seven years, and had been terminated from his last job some seven years before the ALJ issued his decision. [See AR 115-116, 142], Plaintiffs uncontroverted testimony was that he either obtained those jobs with the assistance of relatives or actually worked for relatives. Thus, the record as a whole does not support defendant’s contention that plaintiffs work history is materially inconsistent with an IQ signifying mild mental retardation. See Christner, 498 F.3d at 794 (<HOLDING>); Bailey v. Apfel, 230 F.3d 1063, 1065 (8th
recognizing the principle that an administrative agency error should not work to a claimants detriment holding that the alj erred in rejecting the iq of a claimant whose work history was limited primarily to working for his father holding that work which may be deemed unsuitable at the inception of claimants unemployment and for a reasonable time thereafter may thereafter become suitable work when consideration is given to the length of unemployment and the prospects of obtaining customary work at claimants prior earning capacity holding that the claimants intermittent work history as a tree trimmer supported his iq holding a court may consider a defendants criminal history even if that history is included in the defendants criminal history category