morning i'm paul egan representing angela's truck i'm from fairbanks i thank you for hearing her case prior to the court today my colleague carol holt mentioned to me that there are a few pages missing that from the record and she like  represented through two hearings disability claims hearings before the administrative law judge what i'm suggesting on her behalf is that we have here at least a due process violation and that the judge who decided th local psychologist who has realized then that the record was not adequate and so the judge determined that it was necessary to one try to obtain some medical records  hospitalization that took place in the early part of all three and then secondly because it was realized also in the first hearing that her vocational rehabilitation counselor was working with a psychologist  entire process however judge greatest need credibility determination is based on the second hearing with respect to her when we did hear admittedly in the first hearing but he also made a credible adverse credibility determination about a witness when she brought  we don't know that because the government argues that he listened to the tapes well we don't know that he didn't say that in fact he wrote the decision in such a way that if you had only that you would not realize that he was not at the second hear determinations on credibility based upon demeanor i cannot recall in your honor so it wasn't looking at a witness that was was a problem the record there's no indication he made credibility terminations based situation of one l j for another yeah these do not apply here none of those circumstances apply here because he was not unavailable obviously death does not apply he was not available there's no indication that he was l or on if the social security terminations only apply when the a l j is not available to decide the case then the very nature of that is that that regulation doesn't apply that you take it a step further and say that's automatically a violation of the regulations but if there's no regulation for them and then there's no violation i think that what i'm trying to argue by citing the regulation in the way that i did is that indicated a process that the government thought was fair in establishing the hearing process when j is not available to make a decision right but that doesn't necessarily indicate does it that it's a violation to due process when the a j is available to make the distance if he is of course it would have been better if you'd been there but the question is just a violation of fundamental fairness when he's not providing he doesn't make any decision based upon the demeanor witnesses i don't think that well i understand your point your honor but i would say that it should not be limited only to circumstances in which he's making adverse credibility determinations based on demeanor of witnesses we have here also a circumstance in which for it she should have been given notice that was that there was going to be a substitution of one l j for another and that a consequence of that type of substitution is that the judge who heard her principal case and who was going to decide the case going to be the writing judge in other words might make these types of determinations in the absence of actually seeing a witness and observing a witness that might have informed better informed her decision whether to agree to a process like that she got no starts notice and that gets to the point of the supplement that you were just handed this morning i'm not contending that she did not know the time and the date of the hearing that's not the kind of notice i'm talking about i'm talking about a notice in the constitutional due from the hospital me ask you this if you get all the records that he with that he thought was relevant to the two fer disease i think he got none of them none and none came from the hospital now the medical expert that was there at the hearing from horton to have those records correct she did dr betrayal and when she learned to learn about it at the first hearing that's when she first learned that mistrusts had been hospitalized he said you know i think i'd really like to see these records now is there anything in the record does not reflect that it was the release was even sent out the government argues differently but our position is that i can find nothing in the record you look at how would those records have helped or aided either the vatican expert green here because it was involuntary it could have revealed information structures about whether she had was under the influence at the time that the government makes a lot of that here course being under the influence has a lot runs hand in hand almost being bipolar that those two go together a lot it would reveal drug used possibly it would reveal the extent to which she might have been decompressing which could have been a useful factor to know in terms of adjudicating the whether she met or equal  the record because we don't have those hospital records that just piousness just asking about we don't we don't have those and we don't know what how those records had they been of cain could have been formally residual functional capacity analysis or any of the other levels why i think they're right and so there's no charges show so the are the end result there's no prejudice showing by this record i would not agree with that your honor because i don't ask you the question again where is the record that shows that your assessment that you could perform simple repetitive life work involved limited public contact how where is it shown that there that there is something in the record that would have helped that i thought we were so we don't know if there's prejudice or not we don't we don't we can't be sure of that unless we were to look at their records but i'm saying that because that was the point how would those records good morning i'm carol hook here on behalf of the commissioner and there are many things i'd like to address first of all the question of who requests  oh yes i was in the hospital and the l j says well how many times were you are not hospital and she says well twice twice i think so she's a little bit unclear was it once  categorically say i cannot testify without those records she said no you know it would it would help to give me some information but then she goes on an excerpt record one or three one of four she's goes on for pages about what she hearing if you do i'll hold one she wrote in and said i'd like a supplemental hearing right so why did he have it medical experts there as well i believe it was because of the content of what he had in them that'll i think speculation but if you look at the mental health center records act it's basically medication checkups monthly for about six or eight months doing well adjusted well view trying they're all but there's very little substance to them and then they peter scheduled of point man march all three did not keep november of zero two did not keep so you're getting a flavor that we have records that is a medical expert really necessary which is would make that determination so there was a vocational expert called if you notice the hearing the judge adams sent out which i offered as a supplement to the supplemental excerpt of record this was spying by judge adam situation had changed from here any longer and if anything the records that were added which included a report from a doctor nelson showed that the appellant situation had improved her global assessment of question hypothetical or setting out that a new education work experience has just that you know if she has a mood disorder maybe some kind of personality disorder maybe attention deficit hyperactivity disorder maybe some other things and then starts to let's say that she would be limited to a fairly simple kind of work let's say not to have a involves more than three steps and exertion really light work mental health records that we had our really did not show that that simple work needed to be adjusted and i see you have got a stop sign so i would entertain any questions you know that there are any of the