but did not attempt to contact the numerous treating psychiatry assist and therapist and get their opinions of whether or not she had the ability to work  analyzing the case the l g a gave great way to weigh in on examining consulting source which in and of itself normally is not substantial evidence but in this case it could be but you'd have to analyze this from both sides you have to look at the treating sources and explain why their opinions and findings are not to be given great weight and particularly when somebody isn't represented the judge then takes over the almost the role of the attorney and has to really try to develop her case each time she was hospitalized he changed her medication and she got much better and she was able to function again she was never able to go back to work i mean she was barely functional occasionally she was a little bit better but reading that record and giving any weight to the treating sources it would appear that she would be unable to work on a full time sustained basis and normally even when there is a lawyer required to at least analyze what the treating sources said and here she was treated by five or six board certified psychiatry asst who noted her tangential thinking who noted that she sometimes was so incredible sadness her inability to concentrate and focus the record shows she lost her last job because she had a meltdown when she couldn't get along with people even the examining consultative psychologist noted she had moderate difficulties getting along with people and concentrating which in and of itself would brief in this case it seems to me your principal argument or one of your principal arguments but maybe the more dominant one is that look we have all of this stuff out there but the algae did not do an analysis that we can look at and it is evidence that base the sensually on the same evidence another rael j found that she met the listings now of course that your friend period of course not of course but he did review these same records and there's no evidence that she got worse was she cross or let me just take a quick sidestep here is your client currently receiving benefits she's currently on disability yes starting the day after this decision the subsequent judge found that she met the listings now also in this case the district court applied the wrong standard of review they said they could not wear the evidence of course to determine substantial evidence you have to look at it from both sides that something that might be a scintilla when you look at the evidence on the other side could be enough in this case the evidence from dr marks when you weigh it against everything else is not substantial evidence and that's what the supreme court has told us in the universal and consolidated that it's not just any evidence it's not like in summ y judgment were anything that would be enough here substantial evidence and it has to be construed liberally and it has and this statute is unusually protective of claimants so in this particular case without a lawyer to advocate it the judge didn't fulfill his duty and if you even looking we don't get to substantial evidence because the judge didn't develop the record fully and then consider it that if you did you w there is not substantial evidence to find she was not disabled thank you he had to do with respect to the court's holding in the may and additionally l j considered a complete record considered true in records from all of her providers as during the hearing if you look at the transcript he went with her through the different training sources she identified as another source which they l j did not obtain records from after the hearing l j subsequently developed record further and filled the gap in the record that way the problem is not argued that any treatment records are missing and i'm sure this court is aware the court is held in multiple cases that where an l j considers a complete treatment history as well as multiple opinions as were present in this case it's not further it doesn't have to further and go to record on no it's not our job to find facts or do other than analyze whether there was substantial evidence supporting the determination i have a the consult as they already know the consultative examiner found that she really didn't adequately that she was cooperative throughout her treatment records her treating providers not that she was cooperative it's also important to note that while she did report social limitations l j didn't take those into account in determining her residual functional capacity and limited her to only occasional interaction with others in fact actually if you go into the hearing transcript the actually testified that the jobs that your card would even be should be able to  that did not find moderate difficulties and concentrating he found that she had intact concentrating concentrate additionally while they did no such limitations they were only moderate which were again accommodated in the r c determination fully understand the l j is analysis and how he viewed those facts in determining her functioning furthermore they l j also consider the opponents activities she reported that she was working on at c online found that were they able to consider the treatment notes as they did and in this case nothing more was required of him furthermore i would just know that with respect to phones argument that they l j was required to obtain further medical opinion  treating source i would also note that appellant's county appellant counsel representing her before the appeals counsel as well as the district court and in this court now and has not provided any any further evidence from any medical source  the consultant exam or both of those psychologists found that she had no more than moderate limitations in any area which was supportive of the l g s finding additionally the treatment no it's fact that her medication regimen was stable throughout their own period  to consideration to the evidence and don't discount her or her let her her concerns and limited her based on her or her difficulties dealing with stress and social imitations and they are see determination of the commissioners position a failure of proof then i'll let you know my conundrum for what it's worth which may be zero we have the determination by the agency as  the date of the decision and going forward that she is disabled and we know from reading that decision which of course we're permitted to do  that there was some live testimony and all of that so what we really have at the st go around off of her application for the period under consideration in this case is essentially a failure of proof it seems to me or that's one way to look at what's before us we are she did not meet her burden to get adequate evidence before the agency and client rachelle go off was approved for electroshock therapy electroconvulsive therapy that's really reserved for the most serious cases of depression she was suicidal twice and was admitted to a hospital they were regularly adjusting her meds this to help keep her a lot in this case allowing a judge to rely on the two consultant of examiners instead of the treating doctors just goes against the the the body of case law from this court that normally you give the dominant way to the treating sources  meltzer was not even totally credited by the nail j d because my client said on a particular day she was not currently using marijuana and there was no evidence she was on that particular day there really are oh and another thing that occurred to me is there's a mental here's a woman with this history of hospitalizations of suicides of taking clonopin and and abilify and she had taken it that morning so she was heavily sedated and she had a mental health counselor with her and the judge said you're just here to observe you can't testify and seems to me that the judge could have an that would assist me in the terminating this she testified that making jewelry was there a punitive and she never really sold a lot and she painted for a few days that does not show that she could work on a full time sustained basis so i don't think we get to substantial evidence but if we did it is is there evidence that she could work or what a reasonable person conclude after reading that record that she could work on a full time sustained basis and i think the answer is no so i think there is sufficient evidence and you're allowed to consider the subsequent decision that's not determinative and it's not controlling i'm not trying to put words in her mouth that there was a case that's not or it's it's not problematic at least which may be a different question for this kind of thing to occur that is somebody is found disabled immediately after she was found to be not disabled and sometimes that happens because a person ages out because they're in a different category and so that would not be at all determin but there is i find no case in saying you can't consider it as one factor in your analysis thank you as pollack if you have something to the contrary and want to send us a letter that's fine