involves several issues i'm going to not talk about the latter three unless the four obviously has questions and focus on the first issue and the first issue is the district cour remain for further administrative proceedings rather than for determination of benefits i know the court's milieu with the facts but let me touch on them briefly because the facts in this case are pretty simple during the relevant period of time we have two psychological evaluations first psychological evaluation is one ordered by the state agency by doctor p r and that of the you know the facts we know what you want us to do you want us three manned for benefits now that what you have is an contradicted assessment by the examining psychologist dr house you have one contradicted vocational expert this is the commissioner's vocational expert by the way that says if we take that evidence as true then that individual could not perform any work activity and it was only as recently as july of this year in the widmark case which i cite in my rule twenty eight letter that this that i would ask would be what could we reasonably expect to happen on remains that hasn't already happened we've had the psychological evaluation we've had the vocational expert testimony we've said that's exactly the kind of behavior that you would expect from someone with a borderline personality disorder so when you look at the unique characteristic of that diagnosis borderline personality disorder which  something that we see a lot in these cases usually we see depression or anxiety or whatnot the fact that the psychological evaluation in the sense that the in m p i minnesota multi phase of personality inventory wasn't completed doesn't take anything away from the results of the assessment given by dr house and in fact according to the commissioner's own expert witness at the time of the hearing supports dr houses  did a mini mental status examination and what is a mini mental status examination in the phrase used as you go through that thing being bing bing bing bing and it's a series of twenty five questions that you ask the person and spent to to discover whether the said no so there is no conflict to be resolved dr p i couldn't talk about a borderline personality disorder dr house did and i want to add one other thing if i may there's a reason for that i think office and subjected her to the stresses that brought out the personality disorder and that's the difference between first let's go to your house the doctor  are you talking about dr house yes ok he did not however thank you and i think we have to deal with the the unique nature of the personality disorder that was disorders you would see much of this is relevant but you would see something like mental retardation on axis two and i did append to my brief the excerpt from the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders that describes the longstanding nature of borderline judge and just from personal memory yes but i have seen a number of cases where we have said that benefits need to be awarded where there has been but where the decision of the treating physician has been ignored ye and reviewing physicians have been relied on when when our law is very clear that you can't ignore it without giving very specific reasons but this is not the treating physician there is no treating physician and there seems to be an absence of how it would be the law would require in that circumstance the the award of benefits is as opposed to what the district court did as i understand it which was to remand him in to explain how you come to this because you ignored one of the doctor's ok first of all the rules in terms of evaluating treating physicians and examining physicians regarding the standards clear going to be particularly helpful and we talked about it at the hearing in this case lack of treatment and talk if you since he said this is the commissioner's expert lack of treatment would be exactly would you would expect with someone with a borderline personality disorder in which you would see would be emphasis on the physical problems not the mental problems because some of the borderline personality disorder is entirely entirely strong the work is largely unself aware they don't know what's going on as far as they're concerned the world is crazy but not them and that's why this case is interesting because it does have this unique diagnosis of that we don't see that often but like a treatment far from detracting from this case actually it is the key factor in showing that this is a borderline personality disorder and you know we've got three volumes for our excerpts of record are you going to have a chance to argue that i already happened here wasn't that the argument was rejected what happened is the argument was ignored as a matter of fact the entire day it was the supported line personality disorder was flat one showing that she may be able to make a showing and that's one of the reasons this was remanded but if you say all right we don't want to do another thing room yes i don't know that you want that well the district court has already said the a l j decision was unsupportable and has remained in the commissioner hasn't crossed appeal that so i think the worst that can happen is i get to remain for further proceedings that's if i get  preexisting medical records that were from a physical point of view like a hospitalization where even though the hospitalization was for physical problems there were indications of anxiety and depression and things like that so this court  look here's something you could look at you haven't looked at and you should look at fun we don't have that you we have as complete a record as we can hope to have given the unique nature of this type of vocational expert testimony that a person so limited couldn't sustain and thank you thank you this because the record is incomplete one of the biggest things about this record that's incomplete is that down her incredible she did not credit her testimony in this record i don't know how you can reconcile that fact appropriate as a district court decided to remain and for further proceedings because that part wasn't developed and that's why i think that  that it should be awarded benefits but i do agree that it needed to be further developed on his observations of the claimant and her history she didn't rely on the test results because she didn't finish them she stormed out after twenty percent of the n p r exam she didn't she didn't exercise f effort when she was being tested or she didn't complete the different tests with regards to dr just since he noted in the testimony at the hearing that he couldn't reconcile dr house's opinions with the other listening i'm not sure how reliable that is given that it was based on her subjective presentation and the l g found that she's not credible with respect to the ve testimony again the limitations  ve have to be are presented on the hypothetical have to be based on limitations that are verifiable from this record and they're not and with regards to the subpoena argument i'm not really sure of that completely opposite of what the l j found and with respect to the r c there is no basis for that and with regard to the onset date we don't know what that is don't have too much more but let me make a couple quick comments credibility wasn't an issue in the court below and there's a reason for that in this statement sounds quite strange but let me follow up with an explanation a person  suffering from a borderline personality disorder isn't credible and what i mean by that is not that they are lying not that they're my lingering not that they're making things up but why it's really funny in dr house's examination this person denied having problems with anger and she was screaming and she was pounding on the table and she was in a fit of rage it's not credible to say i don't have a problem with anger  there's nothing there i've already talked about it so i'm not going to beat it over the head too much here but inconsistent with other examinations there is no inconsistency here when we talk about the borderline personality not being developed that's just