psychiatric treatment, his diabetes would remain unstable. T. 251. In addition, the doctor concluded that the plaintiff was extremely uncooperative, and that his mental problems complicated effective management of his physical impairment. Id. Similarly, Dr. Helen Thornton drew a link between the plaintiff’s underlying personality disorder and his lack of compliance with his medical regimen, noting that the plaintiffs attempts to correct his mental impairment had been unsuccessful. T. 384. Finally, Dr. Varma opined that it was unlikely that the plaintiffs compliance problem would ever improve, and therefore, listed his prognosis as guarded. T. 561. Section 404.1530(c) of ive test when the claimant has a mental impairment. See Benedict v. Heckler, 593 F.Supp. 755, 761 (E.D.N.Y.1984) (<HOLDING>). We hold that in determining whether a
holding that either objective substantial certainty or subjective motive meets the supreme courts definition of willful  injury in  523a6 holding that in cases involving the mentally ill justifiable cause must be given a subjective definition holding that intent of parties to choice of law must be given effect holding that the definition of operating deficits is not ambiguous despite the absence of a definition of the phrase in the contract holding in the context of a sexual offense that the statutory definition of mentally defective encompasses those incapable of assessing the right and wrong or moral quality of a persons conduct