i'm jeff was along with bruce murchison and mills and ted under that students are recent graduates of the university of arizona college of law under the supervision of dr jordan curtis on behalf of the appellant lori clare who whose presence would like to note in the courtroom today analysis can be discredited or less valued if the medical evidence in its totality suggests something quite different than what the position says in other words it's the positions th diagnosis is not backed up by the other evidence and it appears secondarily to rely almost totally on the subjective complaints of the patient is not the correct legal physicians opinion is not entitled to controlling weight it still entitle the deference and in that deference dale j has a duty under brown vs heckler to fully and fairly develop the record and he didn't do that in this case he didn't use his power to syndrome determined that there was carpal tunnel electrical evidence of carpal tunnel and her right wrist but there was no electrical evidence of carpal tunnel in her left us he didn't determine that there was no symptoms of carpal tunnel he only determined that there was no electrical problem that would you so which you just made reference occur subsequent to the time that l j made the determination with respect to the weight that would be accorded to the primary physicians opinion i'm not sure i understand other words it did the screw pre treating into the surrounding tissue did that occur after the l j had made the determination that the primary physician's opinion would be given less weight now this is all prior to  second terminations yes in addition under the the small in case the the a n c has a duty to use his authority to fully and fairly develop the record he's not just an umpire here he has to try and figure out the basis of the facts here in the case for both sides for the administration and for the claimant here and he didn't do that and for those reasons we've asked that the court find that the record as a whole supports dr easton's opinion and  say there's no question that your client has some significant medical issues no question about that but as you know congress in its wisdom has made the social security disability regimen analyze it fairly determine whether there is evidence provided by the petitioner british and others positioned look at the countervailing evidence and make a determination isn't that what's going on here there's no that i get that what i'm what i'm understanding you to say is let's assume that the case is not doing going well for a petitioner and the l j thinks i can't support an award here but let me call a few witnesses let me get this doctor here let's get some more evidence to see if i can fill out the record is that what you're suggesting what i suggest rather is that if there was a special questions there's like  power but certainly the burden of proof is on the security claimants so just because there's a contradiction in the record veil j is is not on under any case or regulation  required to resolve that discrepancy he can absolutely determine that scrap the city against the claimants because ultimately it's the claimant burden of proof were it otherwise wouldn't that make the ael jay an affected advocate as opposed to a neutral decision made i think that's correct particularly in this case and so security proceedings are not abt the serial proceed it's the claimant in a claim in a law on who comes in and brings their evidence in her brief briefs repeatedly says oh we have to look at the whole case record you can't rely on one small portion of evidence but those statements are really irony in its most literal literary definition and that if you look at the claim it's argument that's the exact opposite of what she really wants this court to do what the claimant wants the courts to do is focus on a single doctor's opinion in an end a record that is over fourteen or fifteen hundred pages long a single doctor's opinion spans three pages and instead even then she wants you to focus on only the period of time after a february twentieth eleven alleged and this is important alleged dislocation for which there are no medical treatment records of which the only evidence is the claimants own assertion that she dislocated her hip record in correct me if i'm wrong and opposing counsel did not appeal that finding that that's a correct that's absolutely correct or are i think that's telling i think it's very damaging to the case this is a case where a again her disability situation now they've suggested well these were kind of interlinked in so far as you can have multiple interpretations of the record the court is required to accept the interpretation that they all share in the age before and that is that she lost it on due to criminal record not due to her her arm physical condition also person who it is evidence of drug abuse and drug seeking behavior throughout the record i'm in fact she should one of the doctors discharged her because she failed to come  points would only feel her pain killer prescriptions by fax and that's how she actually ended up with dr easton the doctor that that they want you to believe her opinion is the doctor that she found after to do her pain medication who apparently would be that that would be causing pain i mean i'm not a doctor but i certainly know that some fatty tissue has no nerve and so pain would not necessarily be coming from that but that's something that the l j to his credit didn't mention that that generally unremarkable repeatedly noticed that gate impostor was within normal limits that the appellant was able to move that separate cetera so it's more she did do examinations they didn't support the opinion that she often the offer and so then they all day says well look based on this evidence based on what it looks like dr easton reviewed that doesn't match up with her opinion therefore her opinion must be based primarily on the claim own description of her condition and in so far as that opinion is based on the claim its own description of her condition we have a thoroughly incredible claimant and so therefore the doctor's opinion itself must be incredible as well now that's a that's a a finding that the primary treating physicians opinion had to have been based on primarily on subjective complaints rather than following through with his duty to fully and fairly develop the record he simply made that assumption and questions to them he could also continue the hearing to augment the record having failed to fully develop the record the basis for that doctor's opinion or regarding the basis for the doctor's opinion l j couldn't reject them i know that you yes your honor it is my position that smoking was vile and your and your view of the the rule of law that come from small it is what one that actually is the duty of an a l j from your perspective your client's perspective in th the opinion of the primary caregiver that the ale j is to look to the totality of the record determine whether these are subjective statements like that the credibility of the claimant like for inconsistency is in the record only to me it seems like you've got the pro ale jag on two different directions is the l j an advocate or is the l j supposed to analyze i don't read small in the way you do that's why i'm asking you to tell me there are lots of them but during my research most of us decisions were about psychological additions or memorandum decisions and the most informative of those cases was have it right here fair v boeing which was a