entire case is the administrative law judges failure properly and sort of the effects of stress as this claimant experience of stress and the way his income inability to deal with stress and that constant state of hyper arousal over a period of years has resulted in a cumulative effect on his correct that's correct now what authority are you in line upon  no authority of which i am aware stating that a doctor who is just a psychologist has the qualifications to opine on the physical impairment i think the combination ok and i believe that if you do that here that opinion still warrants a finding of disability but a deeper issue raised by your question your honor is that if the l j is faced with  medical record which has a combination of impairments as this one does it's incumbent upon him fully and fairly to develop the record and if he does not except disability as a matter of law then the appropriate remedy would be to send this case back for further proceedings with instructions for l j to include those on rejected psychological opinions  didn't he didn't either reject this particular limitation or including i and if i may reserve the remainder just finding the impairments of fear doesn't mean that it's disabling and it's unclear that dr tankor when he testified was using the word severe in the same term of our way that the l j would identified three different jobs that kind of could perform it was unable to do his last relevant work but he was able to do the other work that's the vocational expert identified in this case psychologist partly relies on plaintiff's physical condition that's exactly what happened here dr tankers opinion is really unique from a psychologist he combines the physical and mental aspects throu fact even in the narrative report that's in the record it's the first time i've seen a mental status examination from a psychologist that abruptly includes a claim that the grip strength as part of the analysis was a very kind of  physical and mental limitations coming from a psychologist so they l j rightly and rationally focused on that aspect of doctors dr chambers opinion and rejecting his ultimate disability conclusion determination as to a plaintiff's disability here the record was not a complete you had physical evidence from treating physicians you had physical evidence from testifying medical experts especially with regard to stress which plaintiff counsel mr in the beginning it's odd that he would rely on that given that at the hearing plaintiff testified that's the main reason he thought he was disabled was because of his chest pain and headaches so to focus on stress as kind of his response to stress as the missing piece of the puzzle in light of that testimony and dr tinker's testimony mrs mark disability or to have care advising him to stop smoking and drinking enough to not comply with those directions throughout the rest of the relevant here it continued to smoke and drink and nonetheless just complaining of ongoing chest pains yes he should have discussed it and he should have given some reason to reject it however that would be more of a problem if the evidence indicated the l j was unaware of that about his functional limitations before she issued her opinion in january two thousand so that in case the o j was aware of it the answer has to condense summarize medical records he didn't include that opinion here state explicitly i reject dr kirshner arts opinion because in that list reasons it's certainly preferable one l j does that but you have to look at the l d s entire analysis and hear what you have  or categories of functioning which are impaired soley by the psychological aspects of them of the claimant's functioning in his reserved all functional capacity assessment