erroneous lee denying his claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income the decision rested on fundamental flaws of miscomprehension that caused him to improperly assess and reject what mr kaminski was physically capable of doing rather dr chris taylor was offering an opinion building on his general opinion that it was unsafe for mr kaminski to work in any capacity due to his seizure condition dr stairs opinions properly understood were prophylactic opinions establishing what he thinks kaminski should not do in order to avoid triggering a seizure that would pose a risk to himself or others the o j however failed to understand acknowledge or consider the rationale underline dr stay as opinion and instead believe that this was a run of the mill residual functional capacity opinion who's a doctor saying in effect that this man is not capable of making a decision because he thinks he can do more than you really can dr state does a pine kaminski has difficulty with making the decisions and that those that making a decision in a work environment would cause undue stress to mr before somebody can't run the big machinery right now i can assure you i can't rent big machinery this friend and there's a whole lot of people can't do something like that but in his case he did other things i guess he was a of physically and mentally fixing things handling tasks around the house but the record shows that he lacks insight into the severity or nature of his cognitive deficits including his behavioral issues his conceptual conceptual issues his concentration issues and his ability to function in the workplace and express and explain what's going on in his head his doctors have noted and explain that he does not have the capacity to understand how severe his deficits  so when he reports i don't have a problem with memory you can't trust that so for port because he does not understand that he does not have a permit he has a problem with his memory this is the opposite problem we usually have with credibility in twenty seven see this provision that was applicable at the time that this disability determination was made that no longer is but this regulation that required the agency to give controlling weight to dr chris stay is opinion yes and if it was not going to give controlling weight there are a series of factors that that regulation requires him to consider in the alj a did not consider all of those factors she didn't emphasize that much in your brief and i'm wondering whether you think that in of itself was a reason error that reason was subsumed in our human about the judge failing to cite specific legitimate reasons constituting good cause based on the record to reject dr opinion you mean his unique expertise the length of time that he had been treating the patient correct and all that and the underlying rationale which is one of the factors that they're supposed to consider the support ability and the explanation provided by the treating source and even if that regulation which has been modified if not almost totally neutered is not a political one remains which it will be because that only applies to the only applies to claims filed after march twenty seventh seen those factors will still be required to be evaluated and giving weight to a treating doctor's opinion regardless of whether the l j can still give controlling weight to the opinion because even if the treating doctor's opinion is not entitled to controlling weight you're still required to weigh it versus the other opinions within the record and  j arguably did that but failed as you pointed out to specifically go through the majority of those factors aside from whether or not it was consistent with the objective it but the able j s analysis of the objective evidence that one factor was flawed because he misunderstood the nature of the of pinion and the unreliability of mr kaminski as reports and as that on reliability that makes establish that mr kaminski is unreliability and ill an inability to acknowledge or understand his own deficits was not limited to isolated instances as already in the record before the administrative law judge which their letters establish that this was an ongoing chronic problem caused by his permanent brain damage and the appeals council's conclusion the contrary was n supported by substantial evidence and that there are more than three minutes in addition to the errors in evaluating dr pistoles opinion in the record and it's not just the unreliability that the ail j failed to consider but the objective evidence confirming and establishing the deficit's with memory concentration and  t in the two thousand and thirteen concentrate of exam performed at the request of social security counsel rendered the able jury's decision contrary to the weight of the evidence turning first to the opinion evidence and as judge barrett noted the treating physician opinion is only entitled to controlling weight if it's well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence here the l j emphasized that in fact dr christie as opinions were inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record including dr stay is own treatment notes mr kaminski is reports to his doctors and other objective evidence part of the evidence that was disabled well the there's a notation shortly after his first seizure in two thousand that he was not acknowledging his deficit but really the next evidence that he is unable to acknowledge deficit comes in two notations about him being unable to report his symptoms we have to keep seeing him maybe one time between two thousand and two thousand and fifteen the fact that they never said it again i think speaks to the fact that they were not noting that contemporaneously kaminski had four seizures and fourteen years his first seizure was in the year two thousand his next seizure was seven years later and that was after he had been taking his seizure medication for a year as next year was six years later that his last seizure in two thousand and fourteen was after his medication had a bad interaction with his water co so over a period of fourteen years he had four seizures and really two of those seem to be caused by medication when the problem so i think maybe not that he's not taking his medicine it's hard to tell from the record but i think he was taken off with his seizure medication i don't think it's ever been an issue that he's not taking medication that he's supposed to be taking and then in the two thousand and fourteen seizure after the interaction with the water he was told stop taking the water pill they reduce the dosage of a caesar seizure medication and there are no further evidence in the record that he said a seizure since that it's not just the seizures either i mean he of brain injury that has impaired his cognitive skills and even when he was examined by the state agency position and psychologists you know he was unclean he didn't clean his home showed poor memory and math skills you know on etc et case but the examination in two thousand and thirteen did show some difficulties with memory fails to acknowledge that they all j also pointed out that mr kaminski consistently reported that he didn't have difficulties with memory and his doctors did not know that they observed any difficulties and almost a fifteen year period as far as fatigue and performance failed they also noted that there was not evidence that mr kaminski was experiencing and in fact there are a does work record look like i believe he worked for a mill for about if ten fifteen years until it studied hard work yes has he worked since then he tried to go back to construction job and i think he was raising presents at one point doing a little bit of farming but i don't know that he's actually attempt at work other than that remember that so that's a pattern the it's pretty brain injury followed by an inability to return but with attempts but but unsuccessfully trying to return i believe the step is a long term job for reasons unrelated to hi disability and his work at the mill i believe that the record said that it closed i don't think he stopped that job because of his disability but the construction work certainly when he tried to return to that and he found that he couldn't perform that work dehydration and those triggers wouldn't account for mr dr christie is extremely restrictive medical opinions about standing and reaching and handling and fingering you know but there were limitations in the r c to accommodate safety concerns i'm occasionally climbing ramps and stairs never climbing ladders and scaffolds no exposure to open a sheen or you know driving no moving mechanical parts all of which were limitations that dr  also noted in his opinions and their star survey should also note of occasionally in her progress don't say which all seem like restrictions for someone who has a seizure disorder are sensible and perhaps even sufficient but again he didn't simply have deviated from that opinion only slightly to limit mr kaminski further to simple routine and repetitive instructions rather than the mildly complex construction instruction i would also point out that there really is nothing in the record to show that mr kaminski is incapable of reporting his contemporaneous symptoms he had taken himself off of zoloft because he was experiencing headaches so he was aware of the side effects from that medication when he was hospitalized in september of two thousand and fourteen he would reported that he had been dizzy and experienced lightheadedness so there's no evidence to show that he's incapable of the porting how he's feeling at the time or how he's doing there are some reports from shortly after his first seizure that he lacks insight and then fifteen years later there's a letter from dr chris teo a nurse starts of age saying that he doesn't acknowledge deficits but not acknowledging deficits thinking that he can go back to work construction personally i would just know that the appeals council evidence the agency is hallux as i submitted and supplemental authority does have different definitions of the un material than this court but under this court's definition the evidence submitted to the appeals coun was not new and was not material but even if even if the appeals council was wrong the evidence was not merely material it doesn't mean that the case should be remanded because i mr kaminski would still have to show that the appeals council would have reviewed that evidence and they would only review the evidence if they thought that the weight of the evidence including the new evidence may be able to his decision contrary to the weight of the evidence and because that evidence again which is a two thousand fifteen letter from his former employer and from his doctors you cannot say that that wouldn't change the decision because we're looking at a single sentence about deficits which is now in the fifteen years previous of treatment records the early notation of issues with him so it was not the only evidence that mr kaminski has problems understanding his psychological deficit's at these twenty thirteen concentrate of exam the comparison between his history and his and his sister's history showed that he did not remember things correctly well she was providing collateral information so there isn't a fifteen year gap there are several instances in which this has been noted throughout the record and that is why the evidence submitted to the mill submitted to the appeals council is material because it establishes that this is a chronic lifelong issue since he suffered his permanent brain damage and that his m r i was stable does little to help the government's argument because stable permanent brain damage doesn't mean much it just means that your brain damage hasn't gotten better your brain is still damage and the government also misstates the standard by which the appeals council is supposed to consider evidence the threshold of inquiry of new material evidence does not whether that evidence would establish that the decision was contrary to the evidence of record the materiality issue is whether it creates a reasonable probability that the l j would have changed his mind had he had the evidence that was submitted to the bills kept those are two different issues two different standards and the evidence submitted to the appeals council in this case satisfied that threshold inquiry was a real discussion about something he could do in terms of the norm from kind of work or some kind of activity well dr is opinion does provide that he could sit for six hours and i mean where is she doing something constructive working now the only evidence we have after the injury is his attempt to return to work for mr davis and it failed and he didn't just fail at construction work mr davis gave him simpler work which is reasonably consistent with the old days limitation to simple routine repetitive work and he failed at that too because of psychological issues not because of a seizure issues but because of the cognitive issues that he had he couldn't deal with the supervisors he couldn't deal with coworkers he couldn't deal with the stress and the vocational expert testified that issues with dealing with supervisors precludes all work but the only limited interaction with coworkers and the general public and was silent on supervisors and no explanation thank