good morning your honour's kelly done for appellant joining catalona this is a social security case that's unusual in terms of its procedural how it got here it's a case it's based on a claim that was filed in s as opposed to specific reasons for the the holding can you give me your are your best argument for having to find specific findings that i believe you did why specific findings as opposed to reasons should be given well on the central issue of this case which is whether she had a psychological impairment that could cause the symptoms cause the limitations and symptoms  e well specific findings the only specific of findings he made regarding the central issue of material impairments were on whether were to  because the findings of the regulations are very clear in terms of the rulings of social security rulings are very clear in terms of the analysis that the judge is required to make to reach his findings if he makes an and how the reasons are stated if it's very clear from the reasons what you know perhaps what that finding is that he just forgot to put in the sentence i therefore find she's not credible but he's just given six reasons why she's not credible then i don't know that the absence of stating that would would necessarily require reversal but i think it certainly could because that's ultimately the decision is based on the findings and the analysis is one part of that the ultimate findings that the judge reaches based on that analysis is critical and in any given finding there may be a level of interpretation that could that could flow from reasons that are given that's not clear is  finding is the finding all of the testimony lacking in credibility is the which specific statements are he is he finding are not credible there's the case law which does say that you must in terms of credibility the l j must identify those statements that he finds credible those which he does not find credible and the reasons for that so if he give some reasons but they're not specific enough to say well which statements in these cases will often state i find th to what extent does he have to link the reasons or explain why he's finding whatever he finds map to be credible i think he has to provide reasons that are obviously based on  evidence and that makes sense that are clear and convincing or legitimate depending on the political standard in that case well this is so he gave reasons in his decision but then he gets down to finding right and does not  finding based upon the reasoning in his decision is it sufficient to have given their reasons in the decision and not put them in the final i would say it's not sufficient in general and i was interested in whether or not ok yeah and i was not prepared obviously for that issue because i think in this case we don't have reasons we don't have findings we don't have the judge considering the central impairment which is the psychological impairment he says expressly in the decision the claimant had no psychiatric treatment during the time period at issue she had six months of psychiatric treatment she had a diagnosis from the treating  said she had a psycho physiological g i in cardiac disorder which is the basis of all of her symptoms l j did not even mention the psychiatric report and in fact said she didn't have psychiatric treatment psychosomatic issues so the l j did not consider the central impairment he just looked purely at the was there a physiological cause for the symptoms and limitations that she was describing and relied on dr testimony now the commissioner is arguing that the reliance on dr west testimony is fine that he that the l j could do that the trouble is if you read dr west testimony the l j is relying only on that portion of d west testimony that is really talking about where they're physiological causes for her symptoms when you read as many points and they're quoted in the brief where dr west talks about she reacted emotionally to stress and th type of psychosomatic or quote whatever you want to call that reaction would result in absences of work and it would result in her inability to maintain work the judge entirely ignored that testimony he focused soley on dr west testimony that her heart was deconditioned it appeared and therefore she could do sedentary to light work but that was clearly based just on the deconditioning it had whether there was a psychological impairment or a cardiac impairment or as is mentioned elsewhere in the record the possibility of a gastro a gastric impairment all of these are leading to the same symptom which claim it is alleging to be to have been disabling back then which w relied primarily on the testimony the medical expert witness dr west here had received testimony from two separate expert witnesses a medical expert witness to look at the old evidence here and a vocational expert which is to look at the never made him think that the witness was not credible well not credible your honor to the extent to the extent that she was alleging disabling subjective symptoms dr west testimony testimony well that despite her allegation of disabling chest pain dr west pointed out in this testimony that no cause was ever really determined for this certainly no cardiac cause it was speculated that it might be to stay home for two or three days at a time to dr west anything that disputed that to to directly contradict her chest now dr west testimony had to do more with the level of treatment the and the claimant had been evaluated multiple times and her the cause of her chest pain was not readily determined and also that she hadn't been treated significantly partly because they couldn't be really assessed what was physically or psychologically wrong with her so this level of evaluation these evaluation results this level of treatment given to her at that time just wasn't consistent with her alleged disability or her let your allegation that are subjective symptom medical evidence back then said and whatever and however he interpreted that and none of the other doctors at that time which doctor as dr west pointed out found claiming to have any disabling functional and stations they couldn't his testimony was very interested as a physician himself as to what was going on over the entire period of time not just the period relevant in this case and he was asked i think by opposing counsel whether the fact that she subsequently became disabled had need bearing the relevant three here and dr west replied that he just didn't know it it's certainly possible but he just couldn't tell from the record  her allegations that she was subjectively disabled back then twenty years earlier when at the time of the hearing she seemed to be functioning just fine but in this case your honor i think the credibility finding has to be looked at against the background of this of this particular set of facts the set of facts being as dr west explained that they are really just couldn't ascertain what was wrong with her back during the relevant period to evalu her over and over again reached different conclusions dr west after reviewing all those records reached another conclusion i think he based for what it's worth he said that she had chest pain because of her deconditioning they'll just accepted that as to that as to the extent of her chest pain the l j looked to the factors that he mentioned which included the medical evidence discussed by dr west and then their evidence in the record that she would probably be  stand work or to appear for work but each time i believe he followed up by saying that accounting for that that the claimant could do in his opinion sedentary to light work so just very quickly dr west testified for a five year i can't find a significant cardiac problem other than the unexplained chest pain which may be due to emotional factors could be a soft girl other g i etc so she's clearly stating this may be emotional we have a psychiatric diagnosis which is uncontroverted in the record in the supported by the record that she had a psychological condition that could cause these pains so once you have that condition that has the symptoms there is no dispute that what flows from that are impairments that must the church must consider and he failed to consider those so thank you