when you're dealing with some of those limited simple instructions as a limited stress ability it's very important to deal to give proper way to testimony from people that interacted with the plane on a regular basis versus just basing it on a one time examining doctor or on their ability to perform tasks in a supportive environment and in this case the only testimony that we have i mean the most compelling testimony you have is this testimony from his grandfather that says he can't she does he can't water the trees without me reminding him he can't pick up the trash he doesn't take showers he doesn't clean himself he's never been able to he's never had a job he was only able to make it through twenty one days of high school before he couldn't continue because he couldn't deal with the stress the judge it came to the vote the hypothetical he gave the vocational expert he changed the meaning of that and he said i want you to assume an individual well ok i think i think i understand where you're coming from but i think your strongest argument would be and that i'm going to ask the other side to respond is in jail jay said the undersigned finds the claimants allegations regarding his limitations are not totally credible for the reasons set forth in the body of the decision all of the subjective statements all the subjective limitations that the climate has and which nonetheless find that the climate is able to perform simple repetitive tasks the ok summary of those opinion weighed against the claim its own state health care used to say jand indicate that he or she is relying on that proposition and not considering that testimony  infer that that was what the l t a was thinking i thank you again to repeat to you think that the hypothetical cases were correctly reflected the situation of the pla certainly the first hypothetical question the one that the l t a based its decision on was supported by medical evidence the second hypothetical question i think the court can infer from the way the l j rephrase dr romans  last sentence the one about usual stresses of work that the a l j really didn't think dr roman meant that that one last sentence contradicted everything that dr rowan stated before that the district court found that that was an anomalous statement and i think this court should also find it in anomalous and not supported by substantial evidence as oppos that this thing about stress that's correct your honor that opinion i believe was derived from the second of the state agencies  believe he employed both of them both opinion stuck to lose which was the basis of the first question and dr romans which was the basis for the second question both of those costs two substantial evidence chose to adopt as far as residual functional capacity goes the opinion of dr lou but there's no significant difference between dr lou's opinion and dr roman's opinion except for that one e j didn't believe him and what do you know what about what he said he didn't didn't he believe well the l j i believe acknowledges that the claim is not a high functioning individual and that certainly all the medical doctors who looked at this case or i should say the doctors and psychologists but all them also noted that the claim is not functioning in a very high level now the question is if all of the claimants subject to statements were accepted as true well i guess that it would be i'm disheartened to know why the l g didn't believe you know he said he didn't believe him he makes an adverse credibility as in the body but i can't tell why he didn't believe i mean what about the way that he said it i mean he lives in his body every day his grandfather say some every day these people do see him for a short visit so and you know it's important you know why isn't his account believable or believe the district court accurately assess this dilemma and noted that the doctors had all heard these statements before but the doctors nonetheless thought he could do simple repetitive t know you can assess his functioning level on stage some way but he didn't have you know say if he had had you know and i don't want to make this it's not right to make this but if you had had parents that maybe had been more supportive and gotten into the schools that he needed to all of that time you know he may have very well been able to be more mainstream but you sort of take the person as you get them and the person the grandfather who seems to be a person that you know took them and bless his heart and is trying to but you know i mean what you see it devolves to grandfather's concern you know house this young man going to make it when i die because he's never been able to do anything and that's certainly a valid concern but that's not a basis for finding the claimant to sa plaintiffs report of what he could or couldn't do i think what the grandfather in the claim itself are saying is this much that he doesn't do these things is that he cannot do them and with the darkest concluded from having examined him it can be inferred from the record what it was that the l j accepted as opinion evidence supported by substantial medical findings i have one other question and that is the referring to mathematical ability and ability to read or write the  education if we was aware of the climate's deficiencies and the jobs that to be testified the claimant can do don't require very much in the way you are reading or literate and has problems dealing with stress i also like to point out again that holding in stay out which is the rule of law is that when the judge does not