first one is that dale j one a value waiting my client's case completely and ignored important medical evidence and in particular on april fourth two thousand and thirteen a couple of months before her hearing she had an m r i of her brain and then a few days later there was a cat scan of her brain now the ael j didn't mention that evidence anywhere in the decision and that both the m r i and the cat scan indicated that my i potentially decisive medical evidence before this court the commissioner said indicated no reasonable reading of the evidence provides any support the doctor person the doctor both administered the m r i and the cat scan and at the conclusion it was mentioned that the initial indication for this is they were examining her for  but the conclusion was the diagnosis of medical of multiple sclerosis and both tests and they were diagnostic codes for three forty which is the diagnostic code that was used at that time for multiple sclerosis so there's really no question when you carefully look at the record that indicates that my client was diagnosed by multiple sclerosis after having an m r i in a cat scan and that was not addressed by the district court and  commissioner further argued that even if she was my client was diagnosed with m s it's still not there because the ael j doesn't have to address every piece of evidence not i don't think that's and consistent with medical find therefore i think it is material evidence that should not be ignored now we're just asking the court to find that first of all that the m r i in the cat scan that diagnosed her with m s was in fact relevant objective evidence that the l g failed to consider dr oka did in fact diagnose miss parker with multiple sclerosis i know posing council's going to dispute that but that's what the dyke that's what the report indicates and that's after he read his own m r i and cat skin i don't believe it's reasonable kook to conclude that the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis that isn't in consequential finding the ale jay it's free to ignore now i know the m r i and the cat scan don't give specific functional limitations but that's an unrealistic expectation for the m r i the m r i and the cat scan are objective evidence and that objective evidence supports all of my client's testimony regarding her symptoms and her testimony indicated that she had work related limitations she fulfilled all of her obligations that are required of social security regulations she supplied all over medical records and she testified what was wrong with her and the objective evidence supported the findings that she list furthermore we are just asking for to find that residual functioning capacity assessment was made by the l the fail to consider an m r i in a cat scan of a brain cannot be that doesn't give serious consideration of that evidence is not since it is not supported by the substantial evidence in this case the second item that i would go to is the finding that the routine language that's found in so many of these the solutions that my client was found not entirely credible the commissioner alleges that the n j was relying on discrepancies between the missed part first testimony in the evidence nowhere in the ale jase decision or in their brief for those purported discrepancies set forth the commissioner also indicated most recent case that deals with credibility issues insole security cases indicated that the poor purported inconsistency is must be substantial and they must be material so undefined purported discrepancies that are mentioned in the decision for in the commissioner's brief do not satisfy the test of any of those cases furthermore mr parker should have been found to be credible international interview a school security representative indicated she was a nice lady sad and quiet walked slowly looks to be in pain and furthermore my client had an excellent work history before she claimed to be deceived i'm referring to both the hill mccoy case but that's not a factor that can be ignored i mean to work history is a important factor in evaluating somebody's criteria or credibility excuse me but my claim just didn't have a regular steady work history she had an exceptional work history very few people had come here on a social security case did what my client did my client was transferring funds sometimes over a billion dollars in transaction in commercial loans international in most weeks she would transfer at least three transactions of more than a billion dollars a week she did this for years ok she didn't stop doing this because she stopped to this job because they felt that they couldn't trust her to handle those responsibilities in there's no reason to call into question this very nice woman's credibility that's just not fair to her there are a couple other errors areas that have been dealt with in the brief that i'd like to bring your attention my client has glaucoma primary open angle call com which she had the surgery for ten to twelve years ago but she she was her glaucoma with just being treated with recommended drops that's not accurate now the commissioner in the brief acknowledges that my client had surgery just days before her hearing because the laser treatments i would respectfully submit to you laser treatment as it's set forth in the brief is a distortion of laser eye surgery for glaucoma she wouldn't hav holding she was a specific laser surgery to reduce the pressure on her optic nerves so she wouldn't go blind in addition my client had carpal tunnel there was an e m t that said that she didn't have carpal tunnel but she had a previous by lateral carpal tunnel release surgery a few years before and all the other objective evidence reflected that she did have carpal tunnel and my client also her since she had bilateral weakness in her shoulders three minus out of five now if you had three out of five what that means is that in your shoulder you could move your shoulder in opposition to gravity but any pressure about that beyond the against the force of gravity that you would you wouldn't be able to resist she didn't even have that level she was three months she was below being able to regularly move at her shoulder level against the force of gravity or by letter or hands an elbows she was rated for strength of three out of five say she could move against gravity but if there was any additional resistance she would be able to do that  cervical spine was once again three minus out of five a lot of a lot of this question was made about whether the proper diagnosis was has been made but her symptoms were real and they were supported by objective evidence and we're just asking you to consider that thank you very dangerous  first the april twenty thirty nine m r i and c t scan as reflected in our brief our view is that they are most recently read not to include a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis if you look at the m r i for which a doctor a sort of referred appellant to dr oka it includes multiple sclerosis in the clinical indication but then when you look at the impression normal what he concluded was that what he had perceived as never normality in the m r i scan was appeared to be a collection of cortical veins that there wasn't an abnormality and i think as reflected in our brief the most reasonable reading of that is that they were trying to rule out multiple sclerosis and they did in fact rule it out no other doctor mentioned multiple sclerosis in the record opposing counsel cites warnings but  noted there was an impression of a caring malformation which is a pretty serious malady where the brain intrudes on the spot at that point the cour the claimant for this test didn't recommend any follow up treatment opposing counsel says in his brief look there was no time this was done in april the hearing was in june and the l g s decisions in august that's wont good but there were a couple of months so if there had been any follow up treatment the evidence could present been presented to the l j no such evidence was presented and the agency it currently issued in n p r and that may change this but there's no rule that prevents the submission of that evidence currently to the appeals council there's not even currently a requirement to show because your failure to produce it earlier and there was i don't know the exact dates but there was probably at least a year between the decision  counsel's denial of review which would have permitted counsel below which was not opposing counsel here or opposing counsel depending who was represented and representing the claimant at that point to augment the record with that evidence it doesn't it doesn't appear anywhere in the record with respect to the glaucoma the overarching problem here is that opposing counsel comes evidence so when for example you take s l t be referred to in our brief as a laser treatment it certainly is surgery but when you read about it it's actually not that dangerous or in faces it selectively targets the  it sort of operates only on the specific tissue that it's targeted doesn't even need to be targeted that carefully because the only tissue that response to it is distributor measure so it's it's serious it's the next a sort of timeline narrative saying that only drops were used is true at the beginning of the narrative the specifically notes the surgery at the end of the narrative but again thirteen counsel below asked the grant of the request to leave the record open for two weeks to augment it and yet despite having contemporaries medically medical care she never asked the ale j for an additional opinion and she understandably is more of a binary yes no situation what the court has said in but canon is look if you if you're represented by counsel you have contemporaneous medical care and you don't present an opinion we're going to assume we're going to infer that you didn't think up a coin with both hands despite her allegations to the contrary and then finally with respect to the credibility what i would say is the court has in multiple cases found that an articulation of minimal articulation of a credibility finding that rests entirely on the court's the be able to use identification of discrepancies between t at all which would have meant no limitations at all and the elder said that that was unfair and at the end of the decision really sort of tied it limitations to the impairments that he did find credible he found her to be significantly credible just not completely credible and limited her to sedentary work which is a very limiting residual functional capacity and then added additional imitations including  environmental limitations based on sort of other considerations so in our view as expressed in our brief we think that again opposing counsel hasn't identified errors requiring remount has acquired i i would just i think i kind of mentioned it before but i would just reiterate that it's not my client's i understand my claim was represented by someone else before the end you know i can look back and say what they did you know i'm not going to do this i mean counsel at the time may have thought that when you had an m r i in all of these things that that was sufficient he didn't need any more than that that's of course speculation on my part but i think it's a reasonable speculation but apart from this my client's duty is to say to tell what's wrong with her and supply all her medical treatment which she did you know and i know that stuff could have been other evidence could have been submitted to the appeals council after the fact that doesn't address the my client circumstances she was involved work and didn't have any access to medical treatment at that point because she that she had no funds because she'd been out of work at that point probably sure a couple of years so she didn't have insurance anymore and that has and that's still impacting your even to now so that it is difficult for her to get medical treatment so it's fine to say that you can get supplemental evidence later but if you don't have the resources to do that then it's an unrealistic expectation thank you very much