all right good morning your honour's jeffrey baird may it please the court this is a case of medical evidence and credibility here the doctors who had interacted with the claimant firsthand observed her presentation in a clinical setting or clinicians who had treated her for her mental health impairments all came to a centrally the same conclusion that she would have trouble sustaining work or withstanding stress orders stressors associated with work found relying on a state agency reviewing physician that all of these medical opinions could be rejected because the claimant had various credibility problems of the characterological nature so the theory they l j was using was that well each of these doctors and therapists could well have been deceived knee back and obesity are not disabling crime only challenging the mental ok because i didn't see in your briefing where you were making that physical challenge to it's purely a mental case and in a sense a lot of the credibility factors the l j used dealt with in consistencies on physical impairments so the theory that the a l j used was well if in general she might have dishonesty it must have that dishonesty must have tainted every medical approach didn't she make different representations as to her mental state to the to the folks who treated her physical ailments as compared to the medical providers that's true isn't it that that wasn't about her physical well being was better mental well health would be ok but the doctors who actually saw her presentation and interviewed her or the therapists who treated her came to the consistent conclusion she couldn't withstand stress or so i thought there correct me if i'm wrong but i thought the he discredited her testimony right and so then having discredit her testimony he said that the doctors relied the fact that they were evidence to support just support sure in each of the clinical set of findings their observations of presentation clinical signs of agitation or depressed  affectation those are physical observations also the testing instruments the ph q nine and that depression inventory those are statistically evaluated and they've been rated as good instruments they would detect falsification they would detect the lingering but they didn't everything was consistent throughout also mental impairments are characteristically subjective but a clinician making subject professional subjective judgments would constitute a clinical objective finding under lester resists change or it's the kind of thing a psychologist or psychiatrist would have to do make some assessment of subjective statements and interview answers and history and then clinical observations such as an affectation demeanor and your view even if i really like each other to challenge the finding  but why can't but we can't retry it here so why couldn't the l t have looked at it differently well i'm arguing that all the cases you know do this all the time i don't know a lot of times here the thing that might be a little bit different there's a whole lot of people against one person and that were correct your honor and the one person was only a derivative of dr who on page three hundred of the excerpts gives about a sentence to some of cents each to some of the clinicians of rector record and didn't even see the long term and i don't want to reweigh the talk in terms of legal error yes i'm saying the reasons to reject each one of these corroborating clinicians who observe the claimant firsthand for each one for legal reasons presented were insufficient they none of these could clinicians overly relied on subjective reporting for example they used to have that's when the evidence gave me a so is there is there something that the did wrong that you can point me to right in each case the l g record rejected the clinicians opinion in the five different ones or a forgot how many total examinations seven misled they see these people all the time the so in your view he didn't place enough that the he erred by not looking at the objective correct and if it's stations that objective manifestations in each of the corroborating that but these do you have to give great weight to an l j credibility assessment it just sort of misunderstood her for example she said she was homeless when she was applying for ga you and she kind of was she was going from place to place so she could say yes i've been staying with my husband but maybe that's two days a week and the statement she made her doctors the physical examiners for example tended to be hist or in some cases over overly stating what she could do so she seemed to have given more favorable testimony to her wellbeing to the physical providers in the providers it seems to be consistent that she did she did tell them her mental impairments or were lesser of the limitations or lesser but the clinicians who examined her for mental purposes found specifically and justified with objective finding such as they can be they found she's not going to tolerate stressors and that was an interesting credibility factor they all jake kept i think is on page fifteen of the excerpts cited well here's a stressor that made her compensate again ok but she's just not responding to stressors her real underlying conditions improving but the point is she couldn't tolerate stressors that's reason she couldn't tolerate the world of work she'd have trouble again adapting consistently on a morning may please court my name is terry shea appearing from the acting commissioner of social security i have to ask you to be understand that i'm a little hard of hearing i do have hearing aids but sometimes they don't work so well so if i ask you to repeat something or look like it didn't quite get it that's probably exactly the case so my friend is correct this case is basically awaiting the medical evidence for us a person with very poor credibility and the decision that the jays assessment that the psychologists who examined her relied so heavily on herself reports that there and even ignored their own objective testing relying on herself reports that this made their final analysis less valid it's interesting that some of the things that my friend refers to as objective or something that would show  lingering actually or not they are simply other self reports the ph q nine is a nine issue so for at the back depression and inventory is another twenty one so issue self report so none of these things so i guess you know it it is i think that i'm not saying that means you lose right because of that we don't just count witnesses up and you know like you could have a robbery case where someone seen on a video and then five people in the family come and said that they were at home at the time but then we can look at the video and the persons there but that is will dot a piece you know so you only have so the ale jay stated the overall objective evidence of record quote unquote supported dr reid's opinion but not dr clark's so what evidence does the phrase overall objective medical evidence refer to well overall objective evidence is is the fact of her physical evidence not corroborating her physical claims her real lack of credibility where this is can consistently inconsistent statements the thing that most troubled the judge was her recent criminal history but that was just one enter in the fact that she wasn't really forthcoming about it but also her lack of candor better substance abuse and the fact that the treating records from the seattle indian health board ms bailey and that the nurse clark was that she was actually improving over time there were instances that would have been horribly stressful for anyone when her great nephew's body was found when her mom who was quite ill had to go back into the hospital but the point was like those were almost normal expresses for anybody when you went back to the long term treatment notes of her actual treating providers it showed consistent improvement or stability on medications and the  well these examining psychologist didn't see that they relied too much on her statements to them or reports that she filled out which again are things under her room can do it when when he says that they relied too heavily on her statement  just one of the reports one of the doctors you know ok were the l j says that he relied too heavily on well i mean i mean i look at these three i want to study these reports a little bit here there's a lot here we have three so security cases today and i'm in a hard time keeping them all straight but you know if you can point if you off the top of your head if you could point to me to one that sort of was pushing counsel for the appellant and i guess i'm pushing you in this direction but is this sort of well you know down to your position would be that he's asking us to really weigh the evidence you know that's what i'm i'm sort of a legal error for example if you can say well they apply the wrong law or say in certain instances maybe you can't rely on a certain kind of doctor to come to a conclusion over another type of doctor i mean is there anything like that here i'm not aware of anything like that our position is that this is a very close call when you're trying to figure out whether psychologists are relying on actual testing or with the claimant told them even on her history even though it was many years before well this happened so this meant she had bad judgment this happened so she probably wouldn't get long in the workplace but these and up in jail consistently about that and decided well i'm not going to do that anymore which was a good vision and she decided to get treatment which is a good decision but what the judge pointed to the l j pointed to was these inconsistent statements she made to different providers about what was going on in her life and compared you know basically what he consistently said was that the treating source the seattle indian health board showed a stable and steady example of her criminal history giving her even though we gave her a chance to talk about her criminal history and hearing she was just going to prevaricate so you're basically this is a close case but you're saying the standard are for you is your friend your honors there is legal error because in rejecting the various clinicians the a l j has to provide specific and legitimate reasons and the reasons provided weren't the main principle was that she may be as carrie a character logically troubled person so she can fool all of her doctors and treatment people at the seattle clinic that's just implausible they did independently corroborated one another and the indian health center  clinic there the regular visits and they wrote down some of it was presentational questions but just because they saw improvements often on the doesn't discredit their own conclusion having seen her over and over that she doesn't adapt well with stressors that she did have trouble sustaining regular and continuing work so i suppose you could cite the garrison case which says with mental health impairments we have to look at what the doctors say in total  can't just say that the the improvement is permanent he or she responded badly to stressors and that's exactly what the clinician said would happen and it did so for their own purposes each clinician did establish an objective and professional judgment basis for setting the limitations aired each time in rejecting each one by not giving specifically different reasons  think thank you counsel we appreciate your arguments in this matter