seven that's the difference she would have to prove that the severe impairment began no later than that date when her insurance expired once again at step two which is where this case was decided by the a l j when was required to show that the combination of her impairments more than minimally affected her ability to perform some basic work activities now there is medical expert testimony in this case from an medical to hearing dr johnson who stated that based on the medical evidence alone he felt that she met the listings as far back as two thousand which is the earliest medical record here the medical records in this case only go back to june of two thousand because it appears that ms wins wins prior care provider a nurse practitioner she closed her practice the records had gotten destroyed they could not be found so were left having to infer the correct disability onset date here we've got medical evidence medical expert testimony that she's disabled a treatment evidence from that time period when you're alleging beyond that's correct but what there is here is a social security ruling which social security has probably has issued and which  was required to follow and under the clear language of social security ruling eighty three twenty in a case like this where there's a man there's evidence showing disability added later date but there is no medical evidence that goes back far enough and ail day and i'm reading from the ruling now the algaes must quote explore other sources of documentation information may be obtained from family members friends and former employers to ascertain  was saying because i didn't get to the most important and most applicable part of so scary really a three twenty which is that that algae is required to explore other sources of documentation in order to furnish additional evidence regarding the course of the individual individual condition in other words the l j can also rely on lay testimony on testimony of the claimant and other evidence when there isn't medical evidence alone in order a professional person would ever choose to do and that's i think was part of what was going on here is that she was very much in denial of the severity of her illness when she told the  dr no this i haven't had this before she didn't want anyone to know but what we do have is medical is lay evidence from one of the teachers from who is the teacher of one of her chill of her children from the time with let that evidence it which is tight strong but isn't the strongest part of it is not tied to a time pereira i a she showed up my house and she was falling apart and you know i tell her she had to get help and all that and no one that wants well that part of it isn't tied to a time period but that part about which grade her son was in when she was coming into the classroom and crying well i understand that but that didn't schizophrenia and one is depression with psychotic with psychosis there's a both been diagnosed here and the behavior in a classroom to be in a classroom and crying uncontrollably is something work but the more important issues i think are as her husband's late testimony about how during that time period how she was eating rotten food i mean there if you've got a list of things where she was she was very dysfunctional and yet she that was also carrie for the children playing the piano balancing the family checkbook driving and variety of other relatively complicated tasks according to her husband ok first of all people with schizophrenia drive cars people with schizophrenia have children people of schizophrenia take their children to school and back but some of the few with schizophrenia when they're at that school break into to years uncontrollably and can't really function there so it's not once again i'm not  asking the court to rule that that which that way was disabled during that time period i'm asking the court to rule that the l j erred by failing to adequately consider all of the other evidence which shows that when had mental impairments that more than minimally affected her ability to work during that timeframe the l g a only gave one reason for rejecting wins testimony and that reason is clearly improper under ninth circuit law it is basically circular reasoning say i find she she's not credible because to the extent that she describes limitations greater than my residual functional capacity assessment are then greater than my finding that she didn't have a severe impairment and that's a circular reasoning that does not pass skinny kind of scrutiny similarly the l j did not cook and she could wash clothes but basically she was able to maintain the basics like washing clothes taking the kids and that of school and balance a checkbook associated with sound checkbooks i don't see where didn't do absolutely nothing at all but her activities don't show they don't show that she could have done work activity outside of the home and she could have successfully left the home and maintain any kind of schedule none of that's eviden once again because yes but the problem here is that you have so little in the way of affirmative medical evidence you have essentially a professional guess and so you need to rely on the lay evidence more strongly than usual has to be not simply non contradictory but actually affirmatively supported and the question is is it well one of the issues here that i know the government will bring up be brought up in their brief is that after hearing  the medical expert was asked what he was asked whether or not based just on the medical evidence to describe his in his opinion about whether or not she met or equal to listing and he said she did since the date of the medical x evidence but based on the medical evidence alone he couldn't go any further back than that because there was none that evidence actually brings into play social security really eighty three twenty and it doesn't support a finding that prior to that date she was not did she did not have a severe impairment once again we're back to the severe impairment dance here because it's all about whether or not there was evidence prior to the date last insurer that showed that she had mental condition that more than minimally affected her ability to work and she met that standard because because the l j didn't give any any valid reason to reject her testimony the scorching credit her testimony is true and credited is true it does show that she was had no mental limitations prior to or didn't last insured similarly because like when there was a finding that she played the piano at the time is there any evidence that she didn't play the piano at that time evidence that she used to love to play the piano but where to say that at that time she but i don't know how much she was still playing the piano then but once again the ability to a sit down at the piano and play some piano sets that's not good that's not doesn't mean she can leave the home and go to go to work doesn't mean she has no mental functional limitations at all i asked an elevation question the answer is i asked you a question because i don't see where it says that she was playing the piano and that you know now i don't see your evidence of the amount that she played the piano at that time no i was like i'm just wondering where these conclusions came from about what she could do with the time i would like to r morning your honour's tunnels very for the acting commissioner social security i would like to start out first clarifying the definition of what a severe impairment as according to the regulation it's o three or twelve for listing in two thousand but s s r eighty three twenty requires there to be a finding of disability and then after that finding of disability and al jazeera if there's any grey area like there is here about the onset date the us a has to develop the record as was discussed to infer an onset date so first off anything twenty is not even on point for the facts of this case and as judge ever noted that's what the l g did here he called m e to further develop the record he addressed dr d a canoe treatment out an opinion about the retrospective nature of the impairment and then she he also  address which we acknowledge as error but we argue is harmless there is difficulty in determining when she what time period choose testifying to but in fact it becomes clear if you cross reference it with the record which the l g a did not because he didn't discuss it and then he didn't have access to the second one which came just at the appeals counsel ms wise says at one time that this when came to her door on the edge of a nervous breakdown this is in her letter to the appeals council but then this is clearly occurred in two thousand when she had her psychotic break down while before that because in her second letter to the appeals counsel she says wife has one son was in foster care and the other son was in high school when in ninety seven they were in third grade and first greatly but in her second letter she she provides a date for that nervous breakdown at the  door she further is on to say that eric was now in the fifth or sixth grade in the younger one i'm sorry the younger son was in sixth grade ninety nine to two thousand and that's when he was went to the foster home she reported that she had had no previous psychiatric care her husband was there as well at the same time and he reported he was surprised he was aware of some strange activity  use retrospective letters the letter to the l j s only said that based on the clinical research regarding schizophrenia it was likely that it went back to ninety seven prior to ninety seven and the alj a reasonably noted that was a conclusory statement and that it was not supported by her treatment notes and a review of the treatment not sure as and medical expert agreed with that as well the l j asked the the subsequent letter by dr do you come to states that she's basing it on history from the husband from her work experience and from the family impairment history or a history of mental impairment within the family the problem with depending on the husband is first at the initial meeting with in addition when she was checked in in two thousand for her for her psychotic break it's reported that the husband was not aware of any really extreme strange behaviors prior to two thousand the how much of that is due to the fact that the husband reported he didn't spend a lot of time with his wife that's an important point that has been worked i think i think a lot of it's and that i think a lot of his  care of two high needs special needs children by herself through september one thousand nine hundred seven and then it was then that she met ms wise ones who finally did move to seattle and got his life as a teacher in in seattle so that was one when they first met miss wise was three months before the end of the day injured but as far as that the fathers are mr wins ability to observe he was not true that's true it's i think we are forced to look as deeply as we can i think is the i mean qana during testimony was completely immersed in the case when you're dealing with a case where there's three years of no records and then there's and and no apparent treatment and then a breakdown in two thousand and three years later two years to be fair and then a doctor seeing her nine years later and saying oh this is retrospective it requires i think that detailed analysis of the facts and yes i agree that might be true that a layperson significant differently but then i also don't know if that was ms windows word or the medical professional who's evaluating her at intake and i asked her about what her experiences where with psychiatric  problems and her answer qualified under that medical professional use the word significant so there's no the street that in two thousand miss went suffered a breakdown and then she was receiving treatment from this other doctor who retired from ninety seven to two thousand and one that's what instated there's no evidence in the record of treatment with pamela shapiro in the nurse's name there's just the statement that she was receiving treatment which would be consistent with the ultimate is that in two thousand that in two thousand she has a breakdown to the set that she's claiming that from ninety seven to two thousand received treatment  that would be reasonable to assume that the she was receiving treatment before the truth and as counsel noted she there's another diagnosis here depression with a psychotic break so you can be depressed and still be able to go to work question is isn't a severe limitation and that's where we are lacking any apps any evidence whatsoever as the other than from misc when herself she testified that she had been hearing voices in ninety  seven and she testified that she had been having these issues going back to ninety four percent ok so yes she did it the hearing voices though she said in two thousand and four only happened in two thousand and that the psychotic break in two thousand only occurred was because of her the stress from putting her son and daughter care that's those are her words to other medical professionals so her words that she was hearing voices she didn't say she heard voices ninety seven in the testimony it's unclear what the time frames are both i don't recall if she mentions this in testimony but mr new inventions an odd episode when she's laying on the grass and sitting on the grass in front of her house and she's reading a book and something strange happened she thought a bird was attacking her something like that is what what she how she describes it but her neighbor their neighbor told mr w that she was acting excuse me crazy or something like that however in a report and let me find where the says she actually says that happened in two thousand and that was right before the psychotic break that led to her admission in two thousand was there testimony regarding the pre one thousand nine hundred seven and i think as i pointed out the report of the laces was not ninety seven it was two thousand she reported that to a care provider the breakdown was because of her meeting her son into foster care there is no evidence of significant limitation prior to two thousand and she herself denied any significant limitation and regardless of whether use late term or  technical term i think under these facts it strongly suggests that they have not met their burden to show significant a severe impairment prior to nine hundred ninety seven  at the very least it allows for different interpretations and the l days reading reading of the record and sparse of the record as is reasonable and regardless of that if there are other alternative interpretations of the o security really ninety six three p which says if the adjudicator finds that such symptoms cause a limitation or restriction having more than a minimal effect on an individual's ability to do basic work activities did you take it or must go onto the other steps site it's social security's own rules we're not talking of significant doesn't tell the whole story here it's the details are in such scary trolls with regard to the  of whether or not the el jays analysis was reasonable here's a problem and her decision even though not social security ruling eighty three twenty says that she's got to look at all of the evidence in order inferred onset date to l j roe in her decision as for the opinion evidence virtually all that exists in the file pertains only to the period after june two thousand which is not at issue here therefore they will not be and so the relevance of the later period is simply to demonstrate disparity of her alice at that point to support the notion that she is probably side earlier and then what is the purpose of it that's precisely true it's to a total consistency there were two other treating physicians both of whom opined that she had very significant schizo phrenic symptoms and yet and that it was very and that was supreme provided support course she would pass the stop to no i should more exactly she said that because she didn't need to consider whether or not she was disabled in two thousand and she didn't go there you know she says there's a diagnosis a problem with schizophrenia but didn't go beyond that because she didn't have to in lest you know that unless you can prove that you have a severe merriment prior to the date last insured there is no case here but she didn't prove that through her testimony which was improperly discredited through the and said look they you didn't talk about whether or not you know that specify the severity back far enough and she wrote a new opinion and that evidence actually supports remitted as well because it too shows that the algae step to finding is not support