findings that mr roe did not have any manipulative limitations to support his finding that step number two in the sequential fashion just really that he had minimal limitations and therefore his eczema impairment was non severe  rowe contends that dr louis report should be given a little weight because he was basically doing an orthopedic evaluation and he stated that he did not have any medical treatment records to review which is understandable because this is dr lewis performed his evaluation in march of two thousand and seven and mr rowe did not begin treatment with a dermatologist until august of two thousand and seven so he simply didn't have records of able to  standard at step number two because this court has repeatedly held that that is a de minimus standard to dispose of groundless claims where that doesn't really matter because he did find some severe  disability or medical conditions and therefore he moved on so i mean it seems to me that your better focus is on whether he didn't take it into account in the ultimate  duty to scripturally consciously and inquire into his impairments because the record shows that mr rowe claimed he had severe impairments with oh let me back up here it's the record shows mr rowe was not represented and the judge asked him did you have a chance to review the records mr rose says that he could not do so because he didn't have a personal computer to access the cd disk that was sent to him what's really left him defenseless in regards to his ability to defend himself against a doctor wrote dr his findings and we consider we contend that this really prejudiced case because the judge asked him  rowe testified that he basically could not work because of problems with his hands but the record shows the judge only asked him what's wrong with your hands the judge never asked him as to whether his condition had worsened because he went started seeing a doctor boils on its feet he was not able to stand and walk but the it shows that one of mr law judges assistant asked the judge should we swear her in mr law judge says no and we contend this is not harmless air because just volunteered that on his own but we consider that we contend that that's not a harmless error because light work requires a good deal stunning walking and if he could not stand and walk here then then that finding is not supported by substantial evidence  has discredited mr rowe on two grounds based upon a dr lewis's findings and also one record from two thousand and seven this that it looks like his and condition is improving and he was not bills and take his medications but the record shows that t administrative law judge disregarded dr lewis is finding that he had nailed fingernails and toenails changes that were consistent with chronic fungal infection he disregarded all the subsequent records treating records from two thousand and seven through two thousand and ten that said he had extensive eczema lesions on his arms and hands and torso and legs in feet and he disregarded the biopsy test that said he had sobriety keratosis which is basically a skin infection and this court has held that a judge cannot basically disregard object of laboratory clinical findings here and turn the ultimate question of disability into a question of lack  and we are contending that that was really improper because the regulations state that observations by social welfare agency workers is and he had a lot of records by that time trim records that showed he had really extensive lesions on his hands and feet and all that that mr la judge really to fully develop the record should have basically sent him out for a co examination after hearing how the record got additional information back he just didn't have enough information from either dr lewis or in the record as to how extensive is basically what the specific diagnosis and of what there's only so should functional imitations  e basically didn't have any serious functional imitations but that mr lloyd judge did make a finding that he was not able to perform his past work in a cannery that that was the judge noted was also unskilled work and we have  most unskilled sedentary jobs require good use the hands for handling and fingering the ruling eighty five fifteen says that if you are not able to do engage and find  limits the ranges of both sedentary and light work and what we're contending here is that assuming that since the in this for law judge did not discredit the sr statement that he had boils that limit his capacity for standing and walking then substantial should be found not to support it a full range of ability to do light work similarly if it's accredited based upon what the workers observed that he has problems using his hands then this also would show that he that substantial does not and that mr la judge should have sent for a judge and this is released yesterday and this case should be remanded back to in order to fulfill it off the record that's our case good morning your honor is sharon leahy representing the acting commissioner of social security i want to clarify a few things that mr johnson has represented the alleged onset date in this case goes back to august first two thousand the real relevant time point for this court is that this is a supplemental security income case so the benefits are going to flow from the month of filing in this case the claimant filed his application is september two thousand and six so it's not the case that we're just looking at a record for  skin impairments from two thousand and seven to two thousand and ten we're actually looking at a longer record records than it's in the record actually starts from december two thousand and four goes all the way through to august two thousand and ten  it's not just an assumed that if something developed in the meanwhile he would get partial benefits as of some time date sure there could be a finding at any time during the during the relevant seems to me to think what was just flat about some of what he said about the accident whatever the ports because he said several different times that the report showed me just not take any medications related to a skin condition that's wrong while your honor it's i think one of the problems is lumping together all of the skin conditions here it's created some confusion well you're assuming that there are different i mean yes you're my understanding is that eczema is a symptom and it can be fungal and can be something else sure it's actually its own diagnosis and if you look at the medical records here carefully it shows that each of his skin conditions were actually separate diagnoses with separate symptoms and treatments on the  honor there's no evidence of egg some on the hands and the feet now if you go what he said show the claimant is saying that but it's not accurate if you look at the records what he's referring to is actually a fungal infection it's called  conditions that claim it points to this so boric says he claims that it's a skin infection that's actually a term for the most common kind of benign skin growth an adult so there's certainly no evidence in the record i mean i think one of the issues here is that claim it wasn't a reliable witness because he wasn't accurately reflecting what was in his medical records and i think that's what the l j was really focusing on here i mean claim us a lot of things that are actually not accurate from this own medical records  you know all of the physicians who assessed his physical capabilities concluded that he could perform light work that he didn't have any manipulative postural limitations jamie lewis was a medical consultation examiner who personally examined   orthopedic problems here which are at issue before this court and he alleged all over paid throughout his body and because of that doctor there was performed a very comprehensive exam exam and all of his extremities his knees his feet his hands things that you know if klayman is saying this isn't good enough dr lewiston it examined sorts of my body that would have clearly shown you that i had some kind of limiting impairment here claim it doesn't identify what those parts of the body are or what they would have shown what about the sister sure your honor you know as to the claim as judy to develop the record argument i think the important point is that there is nothing to further develop here i mean this isn't a case where the a us where you want to well your honor i don't think that it's a matter of being interested or probing into every comment that's made in the galley i mean the a l j is under an obligation to hearing consider all evidence that he deems to be necessary have and the judge is about to say no including saying that he wasn't getting any treatment when he was getting treatment and the sister stands up or something directly on point and he doesn't one moment sure it's not that you know i disability here is not the question that well sure your honor he should have heard her testify asked her questions and tried to figure out what she knew and whether it was relevant well your honor i disagree i mean i think that to have a precedent where r l j's are required to you know look into any sue a sponsor comment from someone in the galley is not goes beyond the law of this circuit i mean mr mo did did identify to have his siblings too had relevant information about his impairment he identified his brother and another sister denise rice never identified this sister she didn't ask the a l j at the hearing can i can i admit my sister the l g a didn't tell the sister to sit down or cut her off she stood up he asked her what she had to what she had to say which was a very very big unsupported statement about walking like a zombie really is to click it of the claimant's testimony about having these boils on his feet which is the dental we appear nowhere in the medical evidence you know this court has told us how can we discharge a duty to develop the record we can make a reasonable attempt to find the claimants medical records we did that here both before and after the hearing we can get a consultation of big salman or we did that here and you know what they told us that he could perform light work with no manipulative limitations and we had to our physicians review his backers and they agreed i want to point out too that dr lewis did not say that he did not review the medical records he said that there were no imaging testing for him and again he was considering orthopedic complaints which aren't at issue here so it's not a case that he didn't have the records it's not a case that he wasn't informed as to what the impairments at issue were here there's simply nothing in the record to invalidate or even show any weaknesses and dr lewis its findings they were based on his own diagnostic testing which all came back normal i mean we need to remember that the claimant here is making a very extreme allegation he's saying that he has a skin condition or skin conditions what about the fact that he was i mean was departing from my flat wrong terminations as to what the medical records showed about whether he had treatment  wrong about that no your honor they all say i actually made his statement that the claimant doesn't take any medication for x amount based on the claimants own reports to the agency which he made on three separate occasions even though the medical records showed repeatedly that he did he sure your honor but i think that the a l j is continuing statement which you haven't pointed out was was that it was the claimants lack of diligence in taking his medication that really undermined his credit saying that he and the doctor say that it's in the medical records and i can show you that that we can pointing out he actually book and said treatment period that's about two and a half years long it's actually with the physician's assistant named steve crick orients and i think that's the doctor steve that claim it refers to dr c it is not a dermatologist the doctor h office is almost also not a dermatologist the records from this office start from june third two thousand and seven and i'm sorry what is the name it's community comprehensive care and it's steve  mark heinrich and these records are actually at the supplemental excerpts of record two forty eight to two sixty six and you'll see i mean claim it talks about these extensive lesions and boils all over his body so i'm saying i don't recall seeing any of this evidence in the record so i look very carefully and i find a grand total of three instances of lesions over a six year period so i look at the first one june two thousand and seven at page two sixty lesions zero but it also says they greatly improved with medications but the claimant has been out of medications for three months i go to the next time there's an instance of lesions october fourteenth two thousand and seven now i'm up to sixty three of the supplemental sorts of records again lesions and again patient has no money for medication so i go the last reference of any lesions june eighteenth two thousand and eight at two fifty seven of the record and again it patient states that he has used up all medications you know if you look at the actual records putting aside what the claimant is saying which is not supported any where you see very clearly that the claimant had actually been complaining about  conditions as early as one nine hundred ninety nine he testified with certainty that the first time he started experiencing his fungal infection was in one nine hundred ninety nine he admits today no treatment until seven years so we the immediately cut out seven years from his eligibility period so now we start at two thousand and seven we go through two thousand and ten and what do we see we see that the three early instances of lesions all correspond to instances where he went long periods of not being compliant with his medications we see the new evidence that he said minutes it actually shows that he started taking his medication and guess what his add some improved it actually was stable by august two thousand and ten so it's not your honor that the a l j got any of the evidence wrong here medicating the complaint symptoms with against his credibility so i guess i'm not seeing the end accuracy of the statement based on the medical records because let me ask you a quick question  honor given the fog which which you have big knowledge here existed around the conditions that affected is skinner his nails various things like that and the only doctor he had seen at the behest of the of your client was was an orthopedic physician right correct what would have precluded or wouldn't it have been better maybe i should put it that way would have been better for the ail jade to just kind of hold the hearing in abeyance and send him for a consultation with a dermatologist so that there would have been a clearer more precise record to support what you have suggested is actually the circumstances here honor you know of course in every instance we would love to have a doctor who specializes in exactly what the impairment issue is it's more common for for our claimants to see kind of general  you know there are special instances where a claim it can be alleging an impairment or symptoms that are perhaps so out of the ordinary general training that we might go to a specialist that certainly is it in the evidence here i mean most dermatologist for a consultation on a report could he have done that your honor i i would guess that he he could i don't know exactly what they all say defines in terms of a c e here i think more he done that one way or the other we wouldn't be here well i disagree your honor i mean diagnosed this is important because you have to have a medically determinable reason for your symptoms but that's really the only import of diagnosis it's never enough alone i mean here we have an instance where claimant could arguably have severe and some are still does that mean he has any physical limitations so i don't see what we add by sending the claimant to a dermatologist except for going beyond what our regs require and i don't think it will when the dermatologist if it was board certified dermatologist be able to tell you whether the eczema was of a kind or nature that would in fact  more because there's all kinds of degrees of eczema but if he is maintaining as he is that his eczema is so severe that he's unable to work wouldn't a dermatologist been in a position to either say in a very objective medically that's correct or it's below me no your honor i don't think that they're really going to be able to say over a period of time this claimants exit is affecting i guess what your honor is getting at that the dermatologist could say this is one of the most severe cases of the exam i've ever seen it it must have some limitation but very simply and to work through you know this guy has you know ration and scale and pain all over his hands and he can't really move them very well examination of functional capability goes to a specialty in terminology i mean i'm really not seeing how my internist from go anywhere near term metrology as well i mean i think is a fair point to your honor that claimant has been seeing and is still seeing doctors or physicians assistants who are dermatologists so to say that why don't we have to send him to a specialist to decide how that his skin condition is when the fact that he said i i'm still i mean my big problem is that t medicating the plain symptoms weighs against his credibility where do you see him saying anywhere that he was prescribed it but didn't take it he doesn't say that in his assistant and in fact the only evidence that he didn't take was he didn't take it when he ran out of money to buy it will know you're on there and that's i you know i asked what is the you know the there's actually three instances not taking medication and one is that he did say that but the record is clear that that's not true here i mean he's a veiled himself of medical care for years he admits that he's taken here was departing from an iranian promise he was wrong you're on our disagree you know i think that i think that i understand you're saying that the l g didn't articulate it i don't think that it means the premise might mention that apparently he did allege an onset date in two thousand we would not remain and we would not be claiming that he was disabled during that period of time we would certainly amend the onset date one of your medical problems prevent you from going or we w end amend the onset date to the date he first began regular treatment for his exam which would be again in august of two thousand and eight on an s s i case you cannot get benefits prior to date of application to begin with so  that eczema fungal infections carries no functional implications he didn't really say he was you could work or not work i mean he just basically guessed he says that he thought it just would carry no functional implications