opinion this contrary to the person's actual course of treatment position the person who supervised the he created the most in his most moved in but here you have a treating physician who also says that she  asked to look at the time period from two thousand psi then through two thousand and nine which was the time period that the two thousand and twelve district court was locking up and when there is any twelve month period  where a claimant and is unable to perform substantial gain activity that warrants a finding of disability and once that conflicting evidence about that there's mosley's and then there's curves and the opinion on the two thousand and twelve district court looked at dr cards as opinion and decided that that was not contradictory evidence to dr mostly its opinion and that that was not a viable reason to discount dr mostly as opinion that was exam there was and i have a feeling that that there was a little concerned that the lawyer had a lawyer had come in and that mosley's report which there was no treating notes the whole year said treated this person for a whole year absolutely no notes or treatment and then you know communication with the attorney and report is written up that you might have been made to order  didn't seem to want to pursue that path so it's kind of an you know what what's he able j to do and that's ok so there's a couple points i want to address to your question so st during this time period there are the prescription notes from dr mostly along with that miss sutherland's testimony that paint a picture of a doctor attending to stabilize a patient and find a medication that works during this period in the prescription  in the treatment center and using that to contradict her leader conclusions after treating the sutherland for two years about her ability to function in a work setting is exactly the kind of reasoning that this court has admonished and morales and then brown a while where this court has explicitly said that treating physicians notes about how a patient is doing whether they're stable or during treatment cannot be a reason for is not necessarily a reason to then discount that doctor's opinion that that patient is unable to perform in a work studying moreover the treating physicians dr to create mr roberts who treated him as sutherland from two thousand and twelve should take evidence from two thousand and twelve and use it to intuit what was happening in two thousand and seven and eight so i don't think that we should use that to just out what was happening in two thousand and seven in two in analysis of the record of the whole and looking at the opinions of treating physicians that support dr mostly the pain and should we get should we read man four to find the treatment notes are there treatment notes so there are no it's unlikely that those attorney about what medical background stated like submitted while but the lawyer seems to say i'll leave that up to your discretion because you're the one that has to make that decision yes i'm not coming one specifically about th j also discounts their opinions for st similar types of reasoning she picks and chooses through their treatment notes points where they say about ms sutherland is stable or controlled on medication ignoring the fact that  multiple times they say that stressors impact miss sutherland's ability to remain compliant with medications ignoring the fact that at one point she collapsed during treatment and was hospitalized ignoring the fact that the dizziness her fear her good fact that she gets confused and scared and in two thousand and twelve the fact that after being hospitalized she chose to move in with her grandfather because she was scared of leaving her daughters alone in the different occasions sixteen months apart the l g a correctly focused on the statutory requirement that an individual be unable to work for at least twelve continuous months to qualify for disability no matter how severely limited a person is for days weeks even months at a time she is not disabled if her condition improved to the point where she could work within a year a reasonably found th have here are gone and we look at we've been asked to take a look at a two year period but if we look at the entire seven year period she is compliant with medications and she is able to take care of a number of important aspects in our life she the earth and they grew and she was in a mother daughter relationship with them during that time magazine that she raising them she with me to be taking quite a bit of liberty with the nature of the relationship in the age of her psychosis she needed to stay on her medication that's why she was hospitalized and so if that's in july two thousand and seven what twelve month period do we have to tie to tie together we really don't have anything there your honor we have july two thousand and seven and then a point that was that that we raised in a brief is that she goes to see her neurologist dr care nuccio dr karen michel examines her twice within three and then four months of her hospitalization his mental status examination findings are completely normal not only that you want to but we have the examination from dr curse and dr curtis as the panel discussed with counsel found that she had no significant  language that he used is really important if we look at age two hundred and seventy seven at no time during the interview or evaluation did it appear that any mood thought personality or attention disorder affected her  she describes limiting plaintiff to simple unskilled work work that is essentially isolated with only occasional supervision remember there are only three areas that d mostly determined miss southerland was completely unable to perform in those areas the l j we find in the r c assessment accounts for that accounts for that by isolating her by putting her in a low stress work competing opinions throughout this case there is conflicting evidence throughout this case and the algae has to take that evidence and has to determine what's right counsel pointed out that the l j did not accept  so based on that your honor i think what we have here actually is quite a good decision by the l j telling off of variety of reasons for which mister dr mosley's opinion was not entitled to fo d again remember she gave l j showalter gaev varying degrees of weight to various of dr mosley's findings and to suggest that it's inappropriate for the l j to look for supporting evidence in dr mosley's own training records that that's somehow unfair that's not consistent with the law it's not consistent with the regulations and i think the judge endo pointed out that there was concern we only have to treatment notes from dr mosley one of which spends a good deal of time talking about we've got to get on the phone her hearings coming up i've got to complete my opinion so what then by by looking at the the findings that dr mostly had in her own records we see that she's doing very well when she's compliant with medication and let's remember seven years she is compliant for all but those two occasions when she's hospitalized and again those two hospitalizations take part take place sixteen months apart was appropriate to look at evidence outside the closed period to determine the initial period i think that we have enough in the initial period again and we have a substantial evidence standard here and as justice kagan recently made clear that standard is not hot so we could go back and forth with facts all day but at the end of the day if there is enough to support the a position if there's a reasonable basis for it then the commissioner the commissioner's decision should be affirmed and here we have more than six more than a scintilla more than the mere scintilla we have three treating and brown a well because here your view is that they did give reasons yes your honor i think it's very important when we look at morale us and we look at ground zero well let's talk about the competition of evidence in most cases it really wasn't much of a competition we had to reviewing agency physicians but then we had the whole treating physician treating physician opinions and i think even the c e at least i'm sorry consultation examiner in morales also believes that morales was disabled and beyond that in morales we have the court had a great concern with the l b j seemingly taking portions of believe mr mollett had oppositional defiant disorder and so he did not cooperate with various investigations they did not like that and essentially held it against them and this court said that's inappropriate but again we don't have that here this isn't a case where ther misrepresentation of facts this isn't a case which has been missed evidence this isn't a case where we have a number of treating physicians same one thing and just reviewing agency physicians on the other side here we have a number of physicians treating and otherwise who have examined her and said that she's capable of working and that certainly meets this extension evidence standard thank you very much mr if this is your interation it sounds individuals and what the l j was really getting at is that mr other one is saying that she's unable to work she's unable to do much of anything and yet she's able to travel independently to jamaica for a two week period that's not criticizing her for whom she's keeping company with that's her family she's commenting that she's able to travel independently down to jamaica which i would have difficulty doing  period again we've got a sixteen month period it's divided up by various physicians who examined the records or have examined her and to say that she is not and are entitled to wait and the l j gave appropriate here that opinion was done confirmed an earful two thousand and eight so now we're about four months away i'm sorry about six months away from the next hospitalization between april of eight and the next hospitalization we don't have any records what we do have is miss southerland caring for a home bound grandfather and her grandfather had one leg while it was not able to leave the home and let's remember that miss southerland career was as a home health care provider and she testified that she would get up in the morning she would empty his urine all she would prepare his meal period in which she seeks disability under the regulations this is an individual who is more likely to be able to adjust to different forms of work so even though the a l j determine that she could not return to her job as a  nurse with this very forgiving residual functional capacity assessment there were a number of believe the vocational expert found three quarters of a one million jobs a one million jobs that in sutherland could do  there was also some discussion about the compliance about i'm sorry about the period in which we have a gap in this mosley's i'm sorry dr mostly street is and what we have there are prescriptions that change but not because there was an issue with how misato them was doing on them because miss southerland testifier joint appendix eighty one  testified that dr mostly was changing her medicines because of the results of blood tests and liver function now she was on several and one of the issues with seroquel is that it can have an impact on liver function so the fact that dr mostly is changing is looking to find a different medication for doesn't indicate that she's having problems with compliance it means the doctor mostly is trying to protect her from any side effects of circles so we again in that in would your honor i think that some of the issues regarding whether there should have been a nd consultation examination that that would have more weight because as c e o i'm sorry consultation of examiner is going to take a is an important very important examination and assessment and opinion that he gives us in this case whether it would be determinative if it was not here  again i get back to the standard announced in b step whatever justice kagan said you know whatever the more than a scintilla threshold means it means and means only such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion i think we have that with the state agency positions with dr karen you chose examinations but i think when we had to that the consultation examination of dr cur wants to be credited it would constitute substantial evidence of disability and that opinion was based on the testimony of the vocational expert at the two thousand and eight which found that if credit dr mostly opinion would mean that the claimant was unable to work that is the only vocational expert who looked at the limitations specifically that dr mostly had listed so the fact that  poly focuses on which limitations dr mostly highlighted and vocational expert at that time looked at that report and found someone with these just abilities would be unable to work the nd thing richard three the vocational as the support for non examining consultation examiners getting great weight which they are at times entitled to the court explicitly says in this case they all j didn't merely just significant weight to these opinions the only evidence she basis not on if she says that they're consistent with the evidence and the record on the whole not acknowledging that they are inconsistent with dr mostly is opinion and the opinions pre hearing questionnaire addressed to the lawyer correct yes what else do we have from mostly we have the prescription records from that entire time period i don't know i mean i peer  hypothesize but that's really not never dence of and any kind of condition during that time period is it what we do know about in november two thousand and eight she was she was hospitalized and we we do know  medication compliant and issues with the medications and so so what we don't know exactly what's going on we see that the prescriptions are changing but we have the treatment now in two thousand and eight from november which list which refers back to an earlier treatment now which says prior to the hospitalization there were symptoms of paranoia and hallucinations and and then just cuddle and was hospitalized for ten days additionally we have