thank you you're on a good morning i'm here on behalf of jack gardner and i'd like to reserve my remaining time for me but all i propose to discuss three issues of legal error and lack of substantial evidence in this case is for the totality of the probative evidence social security rulings also require that if the residual functional capacity assessment of the administrate of law judge conflicts with an opinion from changed residual functional capacity in this case found that mr gardner could perform work with little public contact and routine repetitive work treating doctor's gro hundred ninety nine treating dr browne stated that high levels of anxiety and depression for mr gardner were so severe as to interfere with his ability to function in a work setting in two thousand after nearest stated it was apparent that mr gardner was currently on able to perform on going gainful employment the l j made no interpretation or findings regarding two thirds treating physician opinions and scans as a dr brown and after hearing he l j improperly dismissed the opinion of dr norvel by finding she had only seen him for a limited time in fact she considered many of the doctors reports and alice's should be adequate however each treating doctor who offers probative evidence should be properly considered in order to base an informed decision on the record as a whole over the span of three years three treating doctors offered opinions of disability no other treating doctors contradicted them mr gardner believes it was legal error not to without an attorney he has disability of here in a rush on the last day of his job and the statements are not supported by record evidence yes he did move several times but there is no evidence to suggest how many belonging he moved or the facts that disability causes people to move because they have no income he did put on a case without an attorney however up until the week prior to his hearing his attorney had done all the work there's no evidence in the record to show why the attorney did not come to the hearing he's just to believe you did not appear in a rush on the last day of his job for several months prior to leaving his job at los alamos had been disabled for several months leading up to me to the end of his job was the stable or was he suffering from some way while working he was trying inclusions as a whole this is not a case of picking excuse me picking and choosing the most favorable reports l j need only explain why significant probative evidence has been rejected compromise and that the claimant had a litigation driven style that is that he was he was motivated to get social security disability benefits but that this breakdown caused him to have slight moderate limitations like dr wind and noted that the claimant had a penchant for exaggerating his symptoms and he was motivated to get disability there is an allegation that the l g did not discuss the reports of dr did not require intense interpersonal relationships and or more than routine repetitive work properly accounted for his limitation supported by substantial evidence and we ask that the court affirm on this issue with regard to credibility this case really involves credibility the record is replete with exaggerations of his symptoms impairments never three treating doctors the only doctors in the record of state disability opinion who believe that mr gardner is not able to work so unless there is some reason in the record that doesn't seem a substantial evidence argument mr turner is not requesting that every single medical report in this record be considered he's only asking for the probative evidence around his disability there are a great deal condition and they tried many different medications as you could see in the record unfortunately because his liver was in such bad condition he was not able to handle most patients but doctors have said