the central issue in this case is about whether an ala j has a duty to the central issue in this case is whether an elegy has a duty to develop the record for the claimant has a lifelong history of cognitive deficits the record all it contains i q scores from early childhood a deficit she was a special education a very early age she had to repeat a grade she was placed in a small setting and even despite all these services she still had to drop out of school a nice grade at age sixteen because well in this case there is evidence that her cognitive impairment is organic in nature i'm at the age of eight argues or is ninety one by the time she was twelve or if you score her drop to seventy six full scale performance i q was seventy three and as an adult there started to become evident that she started to suffer memory deficits even though that was it and as a child so the concern here is we would be guessing to say that her cognitive functioning has stabilized some of the assessment of her functioning based off of her i q score at age twelve is actually a fact of what her residual capacity is the evidence a lot about what she cannot do but it doesn't actually say what she's capable of doing it's not clear she's even able to meet the demands o could accurately assess and the review opinion was also based on old i q scores and so even though the record may indicate she had two very minimal which may i say most of our activities of daily living care system by someone else she can't even do basic math computations is obvious to someone else the arabs see cannot be said to actually be supported by substantial evidence even though the elegy follies limitations are not actually rooted in any of the evidence performed don't think back to a man that was not capable of doing so and the argument that i'm making is that the additional development was required because in a case where an l j is guessing about cognitive functioning instead of updating the record despite their phone of duty we can't actually say that she could perform that r c and also believes no big deal because she could perform some simple job of the national economy there is no evidence that she disability poor memory just not an issue of valuation that she needed charm or her baseline functioning so the idea is really in this case we don't really know what our cognitive functioning is because it has a bit of a she was twelve and no one even assesses if that has a factor cardno functioning or not but certainly it's a laugh and they'll jay who doesn't have any medical expertise most certainly not in mental health would say the record is fine but the has to get assistance for her medical treatment whether it's from her sister or someone else even dr lee noted that one of her primary providers even says she needs she needs to be taught life skills and th evidence shows that it's highly questionable whether she can even do the demands of a simple job because again when she did she was let go because she couldn't keep up with the patients couldn't remember simple court my name is daniel local and so on behalf of and your saul the commissioner of social security what a high shahs argument here overlooks is that the burden was on her to prove disability and more particularly to prove that she was more limited the finding that the algae arrived at and here the algae bases decision on a fully developed record i chose argument actually point that out she states and i quote there was so much evidence speaking to but to her cognitive limitations psychologist performed a psychological evaluation of ms pasha when she was seventeen was only three years in for the application day and she looked at these older what that tells us is that there were these two thousand and seven scores and miss color looked at them and looked at her current functioning and said that those scores and i quote continued to represent her cognitive ability it was they were there  scales score of seventy six dollars which miss caller explained put her in the borderline range she also stated that those with a score showed low average verbal reasoning and working memory skills and delayed processing speed which the l g considered and which is clearly considered in the r f c finding which allows for simple work and job demonstration a demonstration of job tests as well as minimal reading writing requirements which further incorporate massage testimony about why she honestly don't know as soon would clean office buildings or i don't i'm not sure ms hotshot did not make any argument that the step five finding was unsupported by substantial evidence she only in burden at step five was to provide substantial evidence of jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy and he did so by obtaining vocational expert evidence which mishmosh massage does not suggest and eleven ms high child was seventeen years old i believe sixteen years and nine months i think is exact and that's important we have education records showing she had difficulty with memory and reading and writing we have later at records during the relevant period showing the same difficulties and partial has not shown but the lack of cognitive testing the lack of updated part of the testing was so material to the l g determination that it was irrational for him to determine her if you without it as a hotshot points out herself there was so much evidence of her cognitive function and to the extent that she testified that she is very limited unable to shower on her own unable to go outside alone l j also considered inconsistent evidence suggesting that she was able to watch her sister's children one occasion she brought her children her sister's child who i believe would have been two or four at the time a very young child to a doctor's appointment on her own which was undermined her central allegations that she couldn't do anything on earth on her own the evidence here included education records as far back as two thousand  not shown in the record does not show that updated testing would have proven anything that she was more limited than they are for the finding there is no showing that getting these updated i q scores would answered any question that the record is not that it would just have me just more record if we send this case back for more read man just goes back and forth where the l j who was responsible for determining the sufficiency of the evidence in the record needed more evidence where he had evidence speaking to cognitive function he had evidence of learning disability he had opinion evidence supporting that show could perform simple work and in this case this is a a good case with a longitudinal record speaking directly to the limitations it was a partial burden to show the additional records would have shown she was more limited and she has not done a psychological evaluation but there's no updated testing she just simply did brief brief a brief description of saying ok it looks like the psychological evaluation is still accurate to assume that that automatically means her cognitive functioning has remained the same that wasn't the purpose of the school psychologist evaluation of most high shaw she evaluate her charmin at the small settings the special education classroom setting the reflection of our cognitive functioning she has organic cognitive impairment meaning it changes over time the evidence during her adulthood reveals that her cognitive functioning did or said because she goes from having disagree because in my case with an organic mental disorder it will change over time and so even though the regulations they can be presumed to remain the same those regulations do not address an organic mental disorder that's with everyone who has examined this guy shot every person who's come into physical contact with her immediately recognizes she has significant cognitive deficits they're interfering with her base of functioning even just to articulate her medical history and so we can assume that packer i can member of a handbag or hand package or i'm sorry they're two different jobs from my memory it is someone who is simply just picking up small items and package them into a box or in to something of that nature but if you think about the sandwich it is bread you put a greedy about it pass it down the wine the mental demands are real are remarkably the same it's not a multiple step job it's very simple you stand you should be standing one place and doing one or two steps with your hands she could not do that she attempted to do it and says she could keep up with the pace and she could remember where she's post to be doing  i think that speaks volumes to what she's actually living and doing but again and contrary to what the commissioners attorneys arguing even though the record shows everything she cannot do the r c finding is about what a person