actually applied the facts to the opinion so considering that this case is really about the mental health impairments it started back on october th two thousand fourteen when the plain of presented to center stone a mental health clinic for evaluation it was determined there that misess stocks had was a very depressed and traumatized woman in the st her to individual therapy as well as psychiatric  ation at center stone there she was diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder major depressive disorder recurrent episodes severe with panic attacks unspecified obsessive compulsive disorder on march nd she began her treatment with doctor lily her individual therapy it is true that is a goal doctor lee to deal with of and focus on the family dynamics that led to some of the stocks anxiety and her anger management that doctor lily dale j says a review of the mental health treatment notes revealed that much of the focus is paid a fourteen much of the focus was on family discord and anger management so what relevance is that focus in your view well i mean i think that there is a focus of dealing with anger management and dealing with family discord but i think that that also was related to her anxiety and her depression is what caused all of that's right that's that's what i was getting at it sounds like maybe l j is confusing the causes of her distress on one side with the consequences of her distress and the other side so i would agree and so i think when we look further at what doctor lee said i mean he went through a litany of issues that he felt that he found were marketed the l j determine that stock suffered from severe impairments from mental aspect that included affective disorder and anxiety disorder so he recognized that and then the a j further said that she had a moderate limitation or or so and that's just what it is to me so people sometimes there's evidence that you know somebody is insurance ran out or you know it's expensive to have these therapy sessions but if there's nothing  continually held the pale j should consider all of those factors and they've gone on to say that the checklist of factors is really designed to help bail jase to determine what the way is to be given to treating physician the commissioner is going to argue that they only need to give minimally articulate the reasons for the wait asserted and i just i think that that's based upon the elder case and when you look at that case and some of the other cases of follow it in the elder case specifically they said that they discounted the l g s position because he wasn't a specialist and he didn't do a proper evaluation so they stopped right there which makes perfect sense they don't have to  so we can determine how that's how that's going to look the district court expanded on this reasoning by the ail j and they really didn't look they took it further and they indicated that failure of the specialized treatment or that they look at the failure of the specialist or they look at the gap in treatment but they didn't really expand they really couldn't find where the  actually linked the two together and that's what we have to have we have to have a road map to show us what is the reasoning you know the treating physician rule while it's an no longer in effect it is of great importance i believe in security i think it was there for a long time for a reason i fought for this court many times to argue this very issue and it's it's near and dear to me i think that it was important and because we really shouldn't have to search for the reasons why the l j discount the opinion of the treating physician who presumably those the patient better than anybody else  here it was it should be obvious but here it wasn't the l j so we said well walk we're going to we're not going to we're not going to have this treating physician because of the gap in treatment whether the l j appropriately analyze it checkbox opinion from doctor lily and give good reasons for discounting it and giving it little weight so it's given that i'm not sure why the commissioner is so dismiss when a treating physician fills out a form that the social security administration makes available to that person it's an efficient way to indicate your view of a lot of things and if you're not going to give weight to checkbox responses and seems you should stop distributing the forms your honor i am not sure how in this case the form you know how the doctor got the far that was from the attorney or something the agency provided but i would say that the difference here is when the reviewing doctors fill out these forms what we're focused on here is that section one of the worksheet and so in section one it's just to check our findings and as the court has addressed and other contacts the reviewing doctors are than expected to take those sharks findings and turn it into a narrative the treatment no right so i see treatment notes and the a l j has this brief little paragraph at page a fourteen page ten of twelve of the jews opinion  discordant anger they're actually also talking about other things this is a pretty breezy look at the treating physicians work and actually doctor louise notes show that family discord and anger issues are management well i was saying i was just looking at this part of the opinion on page ten and it just says a review of the mental health treatment notes revealed that much of the focus was on family discordant anger management right what it doesn't acknowledge is that family discord depression anxiety p t s d the very things that we're talking about were also there in the absence of guidance from the it's pretty clear she looked at the notes i don't know why she would talk about reviewing the notes if she had looked at them and yet we get no input from her about this i believe earlier on the and i understand that you're making a distinction between the causes and the consequences but i would point out two things st plaintiff has done nothing in her brief in the district court or on appeal to discuss of the treating physician rule which applied to this case i know the commission to contest that or the back up position of a careful look at all of the individual ised natures of the relationship that the  hasn't done the job and i'm looking through the rest of the opinion and i just don't see any kind of careful look at the lily i see little discussion about the rd party function report by the sister but we're not talking about that here just not that much i don't know what you're what you're relying on and believe earlier he does talk about  other than that page ten reference that i've already noted  i believe pages eight and eight and i notice the summary of the evidence and starts off at the beginning where actually the l j is looking all the way back to i think two thousand and ten or for years before  the alleged onset date and looking at the records and kind of just guessing and the context of the whole so i think part of the issue here cheerio again plaintiff is not pointed out anything in the treatment records of l j got wrong i think that's important all right i'm also looking at the sentences the very bottom of page eight that carries over to the top of age not page nine that's even more conclusory than what she says over on page ten or what he says i'm sorry i don't  and then family discord gap and treatment on we go i mean so so i don't see where there's a coping with it in terms of but i think this summary airplane does not pointed out how this is and an accurate summary of the records there is nothing every single one of those treatment records discusses a family related matter a family related stress and coping mechanism so that nothing else i was affecting she she is what she's saying and of course the ultimate question for the commissioner i hardly need remind you is how can she function in light of her such psychological problems in light of whatever physical problems we have you know obviously each case is different so if the source of psychological problems is in part family discord doesn't mean it doesn't answer the question you mean she's got psychological problems well that's diagnosed all over the place and where do we see the engaging in that well i think the issue is that doctor lily doesn't engage in that doctor lillian has this you know these truck findings and then there's treatment notes such as gus family discord but there's no connection there and the treatment records there's no discussion you know think about other cases where you see that there is you know plaintiff has difficulty concentrating she is having trouble leaving the house she feels you know or phobic or something like that and actually what you see and they discuss this is why it's important in the context of the record as a whole they l j discusses other treatment records where she was reporting that her anxiety and depression didn't interfere with her daily activities or where there were you know she went to see the consul's heat of examiner and that records show that she didn't have any significant she had excellent attention i think is what it's the treatment records themselves from doctor lilly don't indicate any further functional limitations and then you consider those records in the weight these are the restrictions she should have included in the r c there's no r c argument here at all so i think for these reasons the l g s explanation makes sense in the context of this record which is rather th n in terms of the reasons that the o j did provide the l g talked about how again it was unsupported by the records he noted the gap in treatment in terms of treating relationship  consider the treating relationship clearly the elder acknowledged the treating relationship the length of the relationship which the elder i discuss she started seeing him in march you noted when the opinion was rendered and he noted the gap  treatment and he also acknowledged the specialization and i think what's important is that you cases that claim are lies on so if you look at kind of the case law as a whole where the court and has room and it is where there did not consider so for these reasons we would argue that the court should affirm the decision all right thank you very much mister jenner you had some time and yes i mean i think the issue is that we can't really what out how they reason that to and to determine what weight is given we don't have to get to any of the other things because we can't get past that and you know i think that's what's so troubling here is why is it so hard to go through these four steps it can't be that hard it's really quite easy and they just didn't do it and i think when we look at what the commissioner indicates as to trying to find areas in the record that support what the ale james reasoning could have been you know it becomes even more muddled they argue that because the ala jacob they're saying that the ale jay considered doctor lee a specialist because he wrote his name down with his credentials after it well that's frankly misleading i mean that doesn't necessarily mean a concerted specialist it just means that that's how his name is to be and has credentials and everything that's what they're supposed to do but the question is how does a link to these factors in order to why you just counted the opinion of doctor lee and we don't have that it doesn't explain that it is scarce at best and it just again the treating physician rule it was a good rule it helped us you know establish what this bridge is to get to the reasoning and we just don't have that