which seems to cover these issues the issues basically is the law worked for thirty three years she got fibromyalgia which was discovered when she had a spurned her back because someone on the on line dating eternally she suffered depression and it is a dramatic a situation where she seemed to go off the deep end and play video games all night  employer started giving her very bad reviews and so she decided to leave alaska and go to washington hopefully that this person that she met online and her knew a little the temperatures would be a little less she worked for several years as the bookkeeper after her right in fibromyalgia is progressive it's what we used to call rheumatism muscular rheumatism and it was just renamed so she did try to keep working as she's but when she got she started getting what she considers brain fog inability to reviews and she you know she had never gotten any bad reviews before it was one of those situations where she tried to get a different work in alaska you can ask for work and apply for unemployment that has  substantial evidence supports that correct right and he has to follow that five sequential process so once they find that there's you know that that it doesn't mean an adult listening they have to go on and say what the impairment is and whether that param it limits the capacity to work so the l j said really was doing the l a was saying that she's not credible and that's what he fibromyalgia ruling which is very clear and it's in contradiction to rebels and contradiction to two vizio which are both cases where if you have a specialist and they die and they say there are limitations she for has trouble for instance to make of it he has to have evidence to support anything he does so the support has to be can that medical determination he gave it straight out that she had fibromyalgia there's no argument that she didn't or that and in the ruling the ruling states that the experts are the ones that has to be a specialist has to be a rheumatologist and she has three who talk about her limitations they all she has to address that in the to even discuss fibromyalgia and specialists have to be at that conclusion and all you know what we're saying is that needed to be addressed and it wasn't you can't just jump in and say ok and i guess but it wouldn't be legal to jump in and say well they have fibromyalgia special said it but we're not going to talk about that she could work in a job that we think it mean has to be a logical conclusion given these impairments she could work these jobs but that's missing from this this whole case has like a big hole there's no addressing the residual functional capacity and no dressing the doctors there you can't i mean this court has said you cannot go and pick little cases over i went to the doctor in my hand it was normal it has to be an overall arc and it's not an adversarial hearing it's supposed to be which was to find the facts and this court's been very clear so this case kind of proceeding so you're not credible we're going to look at the whole situation and these particular issues are not really valid because she you can apply for unemployment there was an employment she could drive she played video claimants testimony was clearly contradicted by the medical evidence not only the angie said that but because she played for employment which is ok in alaska if you have a disability you can  apply and you can say you know with accommodations she went to church you know she could go to church when she applied and not be able to get to church at the hearing and i don't know if that's evidence of anything you can drive she doesn't drive but she has a driver's license and she does have had manic episodes or stayed up all night played video she left you know online dating have left her relationship she has mental issues which treated this claimant and there were many or saw her understood that she had fibromyalgia however no treating sources issued any limitations so my opponent is is just dead wrong about that there are no opinions of limitations from the treating sources and then you so that's those are not limitations those are not consistent with any sort of worst limitation and if you look at her progressive record which is what twelve s s r twelve t do the i just want to clarify a little thing here you need a specialist to diagnose fibromyalgia per that s s r you don't need a specialist to specifically address limitations and we're past that st step we know this is a medically determin treatment records here that slightly predate her march two thousand and twelve alleged onset date and then you compare the ones that are at the very end of the record in the rember two thousand and fourteen is the last one hurt her symptoms are actually better at the light later part of the record than they are in the st when she goes to see the doctors express doctors down in san diego in between april and august of two thousand and fourteen she specifically denying fatigue and she  specifically denying any psychiatric limitations and then you have the last record which is from evergreen in seattle and that is november two thousand and fourteen and that one specifically says that based on a detailed medical examination her findings are completely unremarkable so if someone has fibromyalgia that is severely limiting somewhere in the course of that longitudinal treatment some doctor is going to say something about limitations nothing in the record that from an expert or treating physician that says that as a result of her fiber a mile she she is so disabled she can't work that is absolutely correct and so the doctors who did assess or functionality  cents pounds yes which is consistent with the r f c and then subsequent to that you have to one state agency expert dr hale who looked at that record and also found that the claim was capable of meeting work and on the psychiatric side you have even less evidence clment if you look at her testimony which is you know the last chance she has to explain what's wrong with her when the elder asked what are psychiatric going to teach and are she says i have thought whose report is a little odd i will admit that she goes through medical examination and she doesn't really find anything significant and then at the end she says claim it is capable of sick nothing will prevent her from simple tasks and she should be able to return to work within six months or twelve months with treatment but if you look at her report she's very concerned with claimants alcohol use so there's an element of that which could go to dr griffin's fine explain what after that you have to state agency experts who look at the whole record including that report dr koval and dr donoghue and they both although they say the cl psychiatric limitations are slightly more than mild they still have a functional capacity that says she's capable of simple and complex tasks and that there's nothing that would interfere with her ability to perform a full week so we simply don't have supported by the record and to get to your point judge miller two of the things that it didn't challenge were the fact that the objective evidence didn't support it and you can get around the fibromyalgia no subjective or no objective  elements to it by noting that even with this diagnosis throughout the record no doctor ever assessed limitations based on and then the fact that she stopped working for reasons that had nothing to do with fibromyalgia and she's got this very consistent history she was capable of working with it and as the old jay said twice nothing changed in this record so we asked you to uphold the l g s decision as did both of the educators in the district court  symptoms that cause that it's not that you get to say oh you have fibromyalgia a specialist has to go through the rule and the whole point the definition of fibromyalgia is widespread pain and it does come and go and saw her those who were saw her determine that she has widespread pain she's got depression she's got and as far as mental illness goes you can meet the adult listing just on mental illness but which she doesn't but you still have to address pick people who didn't see her or pick you know cherry pick if they say through the record it has to be proper it has to be uniform and has to be regular there have to be evidence and not discussing the treating physicians there could be subpoenas there could be she could have sent her out to someone who saw her but there's no evidence that supports this a just decision all right thank you counsel blake versus