opinions from mary browning with who is modocs treating nurse practitioner dr saltzberg who is examining physician and dr may and examining psychologist and all of their opinions basically say that modocs cannot work she's disabled and they'll jay did not state any legitimate reason for rejecting any of those opinions in addition because the issue here involves for from the diabetes it's critical to look at the person's testimony about their pain and their symptoms and they'll say did not state any convincing reason for also improperly rejected lay evidence from a social worker carla johnson and elaine evidence from modocs mother didn't did not have to excuse me to counsel didn't your client  demonstrate daily life activities like cooking cleaning shopping for groceries walking short distances for exercise and travelling to think to denver to you had mentioned darla you had mentioned darla johnson and of course there was not really specific recitation about that evidence on the other hand the evidence from darla johnson it seems to compare notes opinions and complaints from different trying to or is sometimes even years of hard to sort of sort of got the sense that you were arguing that these inconsistency a was required to consider this evidence but there's no strict rule as far as what level of weight to give it but that ruling also says that sometimes your opinion of what was then called an at and other medical source or a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source sometimes those opinions would merit could deserve more weight than even the opinion of an acceptable medical source and this is such a case because this is not a person on a nurse practitioner who just saw mo doc once this is a treating nurse practitioner or primary care treatment provider who has and longitud gait and motor strength on behalf of your client positive responses about functioning with pain management and success in weight loss her condition condition obviously worsened over time i should mention that by in district court and then in this court as well i am not seeking the award of benefits because i felt that there was some  l not lack of clarity as far as exactly when is the correct gate here there is also an issue involving reopening that was not all that clear and that i don't think that this court is really well suited side of out but overall i think the evidence supports the award of benefits because she's been disabled this entire time there's never been a time period where she has gotten well enough long enough to be able to do here from the commission concluded that herself reports were unreliable found no plausible explanation for her deterioration and functioning multiple exams demonstrated that she had full motor strength as judge hawkin don't know how is that really you know fair i mean people do dumb things sometimes and you know she gets an f a quad i can see maybe there's some pressure she gets on it it's a dumb thing to do but to use that seems unfair because they're also going to be is as i'm sure that we're not always aware d of where she's just you know ill for one day perhaps at a sort of  period of time so i just i guess i just don't like that sort of argument you know she did one thing therefore we sort of were one dumb thing so we sort of wipe out this sort of history and i guess more fundamental and this is a hard question when i read this i think that i could argue it either way sometimes i can argue perhaps equally forcefully for the other side components of it are inherently perhaps subjective lots of different doctors and when you start picking and choosing you can kind of do whatever you want and just as a methodology  there are competing interpretations certainly there are treatment notes that show that she is experiencing difficulties at times other treatment those show that she's a that indicate that she's able to function better than she's alleging and in these types of cases where we have conflicting evidence on both sides it underscores the importance of the standard of review in cases like consular in cases like for the th circuit birch from the th circuit we all stand for the proposition that when we have conflicting evidence like this so long as the ale j's interpretation is reasonable then the court should affirm even at even if there is a competing rational interpretation on the other side income if for example the supreme court in consulate years ago pointed out that the mere fact of drawing to inconsistent conclusions from the and what we have here mrs missile attack is arguing advocating that the others should have given more weight to certain medical opinions but what mismo that doesn't point out to the court is that there were multiple medical opinions that the  tasks in fact so this is not it's not as one sided as as mismo doc argues we have competing evidence on both sides deal jamie and rational factual findings to resolve those conflicts and court's carmichael decision where what this this court upheld the o'jays finding that when a medical opinion about a person's pacific functional limitations stand at odds with that person's testimony that's a valid basis for discounted a also look at the underlying treatment records in addition to those doctors and you look at the underlying treatment records over the years and pointed out that the records do not reflect the level of complaints that m said that her pain was well controlled and that she was actually eating a lot better so the l g looked at this at these medical records and under cases like parra under cases like carmichael the inconsistency between do not line up with the overall record and another question if you look at the reply brief there's a lot of emphasis there on the contemporaneous evidence of daily activities and also  medical opinions and records at that point and that is another example where the a l j didn't seem to really point to the evidence and i think that that's already been pointed out in a different context but a mystery and it's an earlier but what do you make of that important time i think where we really don't have any judgment by the l j well you know it's an interesting argument you are because in some ways it undermines miss modocs claim that she is disabled during the relevant period is she saying i'm on the one hand you know i can't get out of this with you know things like that she told the l j i can only stand and walk for limited periods with and she suggesting that that that that she's not that limited on other occasions in fact it weakens you know her overall argument that she was so limited during the relevant period and the relevant g to look at those activities at those medical findings over the relevant time frame in this case and then make rational factual findings from that  there was one question that i know from judge hawkins that i wanted to a address briefly judge harkins you've asked what is the standard for a value i believe was the standard for evaluating the other source opinion late like nurse including her own notes in this case undermine her ultimate opinion about a person's limitations and i see that my time is up so if you're honest i've no further question to address that issue that if a person is treating nurse practitioner surely their opinion i mean once again it says it could have carried more weight i think to a medical source of binion's also the regulations have  amended where nurse would be considered an acceptable medical source but setting that aside what i wanted to point to i guess is the ale j's reasons for rejecting  what their doctors have observed what lay witnesses and observed and all of this is consistent and it consistently shows that throughout the time frame here mo doc has had severe symptoms that