holding a history of unskilled and semiskilled work with daily activity consisting of sweeping, walking grandchildren to school, doing laundry, taking care of a dog, and watching television, did not show the claimant had "exceeded the prognosis of [her IQ] scores through adaptive behavior

reversing for benefits because "there is no evidence here that Plaintiff was malingering or failing to make an effort on the I.Q. test, and the psychologist found the test scores to be valid. There are no equivocal diagnoses here. The psychologist did not find Plaintiff to be in the higher range of borderline intellectual functioning. Plaintiff's work history has been discontinuous, has not involved skilled work (parts manager, auto mechanic, cosmetology) or supervision of others. . . . Therefore, the evidence of Plaintiff's work history is not substantial evidence in the record to discount her I.Q. scores."

rejecting the ALJ's reliance on evidence that the claimant had a boyfriend, did housework, took care of a pet, and helped with her grandchildren