the government he had a trip and fall injury and we have opinions from various positions and with the l j and we also have evidence that mr c developed a depressive disorder as a result of his physical ailments mr garcia's an individual with an eleventh or twelfth grade education but only went to special education classes nails they found that he could perform work as a cashier the first issue  addressed in our brief is the issue of the mental impairment the mental impairment issue is fairly easy to understand both the constipated examiner and the state agency physician which is really the only that sounds to me why dr linder is saying that this person is likely to have difficulty sitting standing walking the think carrying pushing and pulling and yet the l j says that the treating physician opinions that are that impose greater limitations don't have the support of the objective evidence the conclusion isn't supported by the record that in this case dr linder didn't even see the claim after his trip and fall injury and we have the such going to pinion developed allow for some period of disability within that time frame and look again completely failed addressed that issue the final issue that we've put forth is that l j failed to address mr is subject to complaints and again we have we have a two track methodology of evaluating mr garcia is subjective testimony that is the specific and legitimate the cotton standard or if there's no evidence a lingering a clear and convincing standard the district court i think properly recognized this is the clear and convincing standard case and yet there isn't really a a substantial basis for rejecting mr garcia's testimony in fact the  the presence of his complaint says basically supported by the objective record and so we don't have a basis for rejecting mr c his record the one factor that the l g did point to and then he indicates that he was in special education grossly misspelling the word special which is not a complex word for an individual with what we would consider a high school education the written the elderly did not would be inconsistent with this pain testimony is shopping was there anything in the record to show what the petitioner does in shocking he goes shopping he says is there any was there any i don't know what that means whether it taxes pain or not certain kind of or certainly are and that really is critical there's a difference between going to the market and buying a loaf of bread and going t a package store and buying five hundred dollars worth of groceries and pushing the slide around right and one of the record shows to what he when he says he goes shopping what it means is or it was or anything in the record to show what he means about shopping i don't recall there being anything in the record one of the things that you say is there is not significant limitation but if you have a fifty apparently you may well have difficulty holding a job down that would be significant i would think to the o j which would require i think some help for us in reviewing of why he would just reject that score is insignificant well i don't think that it necessarily rejected it isn't significant but i think that the agency takes a position that you know you can  may consider that in his assessment of severity but there is nothing that requires him to discuss gaffes score you know so it's if they're chopped off a leg he doesn't have to tell how chop off the legacy interfere with his work if there's a score of fifty and that can lead to a person not holding a job why do we have to guess what their score of fifty means why is the l a l j tell us well i don't know that that could understand questions could follow directions was able to complete the examination could do some of the calculations had indicated no social restrictions and and most importantly did not him that cats were fifty doesn't have any more significance or more me any more meaning to the way that it does to you or me i don't believe and actually the d m v says the psychological the medical journal that we use the number up or down ok thank you i have a question can you show me in the record where the a l j gave reasons for disputing the opinions of dr faruq sure statement by dr for work which indicated that the climate was one employable and the multiple impairments questionnaire he indicates that he's given very minim accordingly he's not going to give he did not give it very much weight and when we look at the record to me also say that he hadn't seen him for eleven months before the letter he certainly did but the record indicates that he saw him two days before the later if the a l j had known that i'm sorry for interrupting l j had known that would his opinion of dr fruit be different i think specifically what he says is there's no record  no treatment record prior after march two thousand and one the doctor actually indicates that he saw him in january but there's no treatment record to support that and what the l j says i believe the middle  make sure i think that the doctor was lying when he said he saw is that what he's saying well i don't think there necessarily a suggestion that the doctor was lying but he may be suggesting that the doctor didn't treat him or  substantial evaluation since there's no treatment record just that corresponds with that particular date and even if he had seen him a month prior there's still about a six to seven month window where that doctor did not see him or treat him true that it is i'm missing something here he wrote a letter on the person's condition that he just saw two days before he is usually have an assumption and then he gives the test an examination before he writes a letter j rejects that because he didn't say i examined this person today and i'm going to write a letter you know i think the regulations indicate that one of the thinks something one of the things that we also consider is when determining how much weight to give to a particular opinion medical sources opinion as to whether or not they are supporting treatment notes or clinical notes or objective tests to go along with that opinion and this case there was none and in addition to that he was saying that there was no longitudinal relationship which is also important one of the reasons that the agency gives generally gets more weight to a treating physicians opinion is because the treating physician unique position to understand and know the claimants limitations and the significance of their impairment because they have seen them of a long period of time have seen him on a regular basis and this particular case if you didn't see him for eleven months we can  exertional work so he accepted the fact that he had a back impairment he accepted the fact that he had a shoulder impairment even though he didn't make a finding with regard to the limitation of reaching with the shoulder here included in the hypothetical question to the vocational expert in addition to that he even included mile mental limitations as a result of the depression in the hypothetical to the vocational expert what we have here fifty one of the transcript when responding to a question from his attorney a claim says i don't know anything else besides digging ditches and trimming grass i would have to go back to school and train then go back to school i've been married for twenty years for the same wife it's essentially he doesn't feel like he's able to make the change took up to do a job that he can now do as a result of having been injured unfortunately this ability benefits are not paid because people are unwilling or unable to make an adjustment two accidents are a limited life a limited ability to work at this point they'll gerry in this case gave them every benefit of the doubt and we believe a substantial evidence of course they're just decision he can do like work a question you got twenty seconds did the a l j indicate that he had doubts about his condition because  j in this case the l j can also also make a determination by virtue of the fact that the treating physician did not refer him for psychiatric treatment the policy that underlies when i that we don't punish the claimant for having port judgment but are we saying that we're not going to give that policy doesn't apply to it to a treating physician who doesn't recommend treatment he doesn't have poor judgment he's not the one that the mental the mental the mental impairment somebody prescribed prozac for him he said he didn't have money enough to go by and he says dr that that's a negative finding out well but he says that he didn't there several months between the two and he didn't he didn't use his insurance to change the prescription and he didn't use that the insurance to seek other alternative treatment to see a mental health specialist again thank you for your argument health and well for the patient makes treatment recommendations and makes recommendations to the patient about what to do and what not to do is qualifies as a treating physician there's no doubt that that the training the physicians in this case are treating stress work environment let's reverse it doesn't have a cognitive impairment other than the fact that he needs special education as a child but that doesn't imply that he doesn't have an emotional limitation and inability tolerate stress and i think mr reagan's hit the nail on the head this is the claim that with limited capacity earned his living support of his family with his back and when he was robbed of that by circumstances beyond his control he