specifically opined that as a result of her nightmare disorder her post traumatic stress disorder and her major depressive disorder that she has either a poor are no ability to engage in various mental work related activities there's certainly no dispute that had the ail j credited this opinion a finding of this ability would have been warranted in this case this is because dr nathan determined that in his in his opinion she could not perform the basic mental demands of unskilled work as set forth in the commissioner's own ruling eighty five fifteen and ninety six nine p that is that mrs surratt would not be able to make simple work related decisions she would not be able to respond appropriately to coworkers to supervision unusual work settings and she would not be able to respond appropriately to changes in a work setting also there was a vocational expert who testified at the hearing who testified that if he consider the limitations set forth by dr nathan there would be no work in the national connally that she could perform the second issue before the court is whether the administrative law judge properly evaluated mr soren subjective complaints therapist named howard allen at the san joaquin el health center since march of two thousand and that through the records goes up through october of two thousand and one she had been at that facility at least twenty six times which is more than dr nathan set forth these various functional in the tension and stated that he based his opinion on this is so in support concentration her poor memory or lack of interest inability to carry out various activities of daily living other than her basic self care the intrusive re experiencing of traumas she experienced in cambodia and also her severely impaired ability to concentrate follow instructions and to make personal and social adjustments let's assume the family were to unwarranted if the l j does not provide a legally sufficient reasons for rejecting evidence if there are no outstanding issues to be writ that must be resolved before a determination of disability could be made and it's clear from the right that the would be required to clear from the record based on that testimony that had the press had the expert was never asked had he credited all these symptoms and credited the doctor's opinions that an award benefits what his opinion would be but the court nonetheless sent it back for an award of benefits that claimant spahr work was a telemarketer and since there was documentation that she can perform that very limited light sedentary work very that the court remand afford award of benefits in this april of two thousand now you remember shelley started treatment with dr nathan in march of two thousand so in april of two thousand a psychologist did look at the file for the state agency and at that point this is in the record at page one seventy five to one  that point determined that the impairment was in fact severe but it wouldn't was it not expected to last twelve months and and then they projected that that dr projected that in march of two thousand and one which was a year after she applied for benefits at that point she would have a slight limitation in activities of daily living she would have slight difficulties maintaining concentration and she would have seldom to think of concentration persistence and pace now another doctor looked at the file in august of two thousand for the state agency and you have to look through the notes on page one ninety nine of the record there's this doctor's notes based on that review and the notes are she continues to be depressed with no change in mood is medically compliant and continues to have severe nightmares hypo gothic imagery and intrusive memories when awake it seems to me that there has been little improvement since march despite treatment so even though there is a fight there is an r c assessment in the file that says she's that she will have  these psychiatric review technique form in the file of projects that is march of two thousand and one limitations would be mild if you read through the actual notes the actual notes are documented and certainly as of august she still has severe limitations and those doctors agency that deals with us all the time we as judges are far removed from the fray we don't involve ourselves with the expert evidence we don't have the experts to take a look and tell us whether there's something else  so why should we if if you're convinced so convinced that we should give benefits you must be as conventional when going down below why should we circumvent the expert well i think we take on their responsibility if your client's going to win anyway the client should win because the evidence of record is really complete there's nothing more that needs to be done they censor my question the question is if you are right that you client is going to win anyway why should we end run the experts and take over their responsibility why should we allow them to take another look to see if they can find anything else but from what you said i think i have to look at the long wait for benefits  simply a question of time will allow you about a minute for rebuttal thank you for your argument we'll hear from the commissioner at this time thank you your honor my name is jean m turk i'm here representing the apparently two and barnhart commissioner social security this case is a winner both on the law and the facts and both the law and the facts are on the appellate side because a reasonable person could conclude on the basis of the evidence in the transcript that claim is not to say it will substantial evidence supports the commissioner's position also the law on our side the l g a properly the district court found that the a l j properly considered the opinion of plaintiff's treating psychiatry assessed and found sufficient so clear and convincing reasons to discredit that opinion the a l j did look at the choose to clarify that however it's undated we kind of feel that it was probably from november of two thousand and now the claimant bears the burden of proving disability and that just for a twelve month period so those  rather extreme limitations the l g a found were not supported by evidence in the record and i also say that if one is to look at the record from a twelve month period after march of two thousand you will see that the record actually shows that plaintiff plaintiff didn't prove she her original complaints were that she was depressed she was having nightmares and insomnia and short term memory one month after receiving treatment through medication and therapy this is that transcript one ninety one her sleep increased in july of two thousand the therapist reported that her kids she was having better communication with  her kids in december of two thousand and dr dr nathan i'll call him dr nathan recorded their plaintive claim that she was better than before she feels better she's doing chores now in three in march of two thousand and one which would be one year after she began treatment although her concentration was not good she was feeling better she was doing chores and her nightmares were  d the decision your honor yes i have transferred page sixteen transcript page sixteen he finds that the assessment was not supported by the medical records which showed no significant cognitive impairment nor is it consistent with other substantial evidence in the record your honor that's based on the mental status of the of the of the record it's page sixteen but it is page five of eight of the decision alert and did not register any cognitive impairments the claimant could identify the president at the time president clinton she could perform simple math she may change for a five dollar bill she could repeat number three number series backwards and forwards when asked what she would do if there was a fire she said she would scream and get help again these are things that would give a reason person doubt that this individual was so disabled by depression that she could not perform simple repetitive tasks yale she also based that on every single how can it possibly be a measure of someone's ability to work as a  have a year and a half of treatment notes every single note says that this claim that was alert and oriented it does not say none of those treatments that you can work i mean alerting oriented means that you are commute you can communicate i've been listening to your argument and going through the notes that i have and improving sleep from moving improving after six months in communication with children finally she can do chores and after about a year none of this seems to be good evidence that you can the records undermine it's like conclusion and second and probably more importantly he didn't believe the claim and he didn't find her credible yes your honor in credibility was an important aspect in fact the judge takes pains to say that any any opinion based on the claimant subjective complaints would not be given let lesser weight because of the strong these the the l g a is able to if the if the l g a proves that the finds at the subjective complaints of the claimant are not credible then the l g a need not credit a any medical even to treating physicians opinion that is based on those there because the because the medical evidence tells us that there there are no no objective findings there it would be a pretty weak argument to reject the treating physicians opinion based on subjective evidence but here we and the objective evidence is that when first seen in march that she was she had no cognitive impairments she her memory was good she could perform simple tasks now no other mental very difficult syndrome to diagnose pain comes and goes why should we treat depression and mental illness in the same fashion well your honor because there are some objective measures that can be observed same thing with fibromyalgia i believe there are the twelve trigger points now that can be observed but with mental illness what i'm saying your honor is this individual was able to take clinically depressed they can be your honor but are they then functionally disabled and in this case there is simply no evidence to show that this individual has such mental problems granted she's sympathetic she's she's having nightmares but again the evidence shows that as soon as she started getting treatment and therapy she began to progress and i know that my opponent here disagrees with that but the able to looks at the evidence and we trust the l a to take that evidence and make an interpretation and you may not have the same feelings about it or i may not but that isn't what our job is the l j's job is to look at the evidence and if there is a rational basis for that evidence then it's not our position to set that aside and i believe that the l g a did just that it isn't or it isn't our job to see whether the jury did his or her job properly in other words the jury is not a doctor either so in order to big role in the therapy in treatment of this individual and in fact in august of two thousand and one when claimant told the therapist that she no longer would be  participating in therapy because she had achieved her goals it was that therapist indicated that her nightmares were reduced her understanding was increased her ability to remember was also increased she was alert oriented and her effect was proper so that's not the point i'm sorry i want to when we evaluate the report when there's a doctor and a therapist social worker filling out the report how do you know which is a medical report which would give credence to the treating physician and which is a social worker which cases so far have not risen to the same level of deference well if you're speaking to people apparently were involved in the charcoal how do you know which one is a doctor so we can give deference to the treating physician and which part of it is a social worker which doesn't get the deference well i think the argument would be that  i have three points first is the stray stated during the decision that he was reluctant to disagree with the treating psychiatry wrist and asked for more information regarding the duration of the impairment which was provided by dr nathan in the opinions and finally on the issue of remedy this court talked about and the neck you case the remanding a disability claim for further proceedings can delay needed income for claimants are unable to work and are entitled to benefits often subjecting them to two tremendous financial