wharton because after back toward issued her opinion and between then and when the l j issued his decision there were seven years worth of treatment notes for mr marino psychiatric psychological conditions entered into the record and that includes one hundred eighty treatment visits with the treating psychologist dr gonzalez and dr wharton was unaware of any of that evidence that was at page four twenty of the administrative record of dr worm's report she actually indicates that on her review of the record no treating source had given any medical diagnosis of the mental impairment so i ha for that well there were two two things mainly it was just the procedural posture because the case had been up on appeal and back so by the time the sail jury heard the case seven years had gone astray stale yes it was very s record yet by mr marino i don't know if he was represented when he went through the initial and reconsideration determinations and in his case initially this court has held now in numerous cases including so then the the l j wrote a long decision in this case there was a long summary of the evidence but the analysis including these after that after the fact medical records yes  summarized those those records but the l j being a lay person not a psychological or psychiatric expert really doesn't have the expertise to review seven years worth of psychological psychiatric treatment and determine what functional limitations depression that there was some pay again due to his physical problems but it was mostly a psychiatric issue that should have also given the l j a reason to understanding that he needed to obtain an opinion concerning the opinion that does not mean the l j has to adopt all of the limits but that dr sets forth plaintiff agrees with that proposition but this court has held for many years now that l j is must build a logical bridge from the evidence to their conclusions and if an l j gives great way to a doctor's opinion but then fails to include one of the limitations that that doctor provided there is no logical bridge i'm last to l j explains why he's that limit the court can't tell whether the l j meant to include it but just neglected to or if he meant to reject it as he doesn't to provide any explanation and it does that make any difference here well could make it right and that's not the same thing it's not the same thing in the dictionary back patient titles which sources cured ministration takes administrative notice of their reasoning levels and reasoning and reasoning level one is a limitation the one to two step instructions reasoning level two is detailed but on involved instructions and then it goes up from there is a limitation of one to two step tasks suggests that the plaintiff would be limited to only reason to level one jobs and not be able to do any higher higher level jobs so it doesn't make a difference we didn't this court has not addressed that issue specifically although in the terry v pays this court has indicated that simple limitation to simple work what it actually potentially a law the reasoning level three jobs of the court did seem to recognize that simple is not a term of art and could have a range may please the court counsel cynthia freberg on behalf of the f a and commissioner of social security this case involves a very thorough and detailed l j is decision where the l j consider and discussed the record reno has failed to even attempt to identify any evidence not confronted by the l j further or a no doesn't that make the usual social security arguments  more than limit merino to simple and routine work he limited merino to work also involving only occasional changes and only occasional decisionmaking and only occasional when he was functioning in a structured environment the algae provided that structure and the mental residual functional capacity franking merino some odd psychiatric or psychological visits in the intervening seven years is it not reasonable to think that something that happened during that time period would have been reported he noted merinos report of improvement when he was able to participate and decision making about a roof repairs because he used to work in construction the l j considered all of these notes in an  and it's an object of test right it does require an update opinion in our position is that it does not i understand that's your position but we're not required to accept the contrary conclusion that he didn't know that's not that close  reviewable we write a test that if the weather was reasonable it's our position that the injuries decision is supported by substantial evidence given his there are consideration and discussion of the evidence  going through each now i don't i don't think the l j missed any of the treatment now it's there's nothing like i said although the symptoms weston waned there there were notes showing when marino was functioning better and there was no it showed the function root function and better with structure and with routine i don't think the question is whether the considered those one hundred eighty visits i think the question is whether it was for the expert that the whose opinion the l j keep great weight to needed to consider that seven years of intervening  medical treatment in order to update opinion what were the relies on an expert it needs to go back to that expert with that kind of additional treatment record if it were to minimalists maybe not but you know it's one hundred eighty visits over seven years well again but these notes aren't showing any sort of significant decline any they're not showing any significant really significant impairment and functioning that the l j did not accommodate with his very well tailored mental r f c finding language class so how could he function in a work citing because taking a language class was was a structure was structure for him i would just like to point out that there was absolutely no showing that his english as a second language class was tailored to fit his limitations with simple instructions simple judgment simple decision making only go ok janelle changes occasional interaction with the public in the jobs identified by the b e had only occasional interaction with coworkers and supervisors and his english english class marino testified at the hearing he testified he had problems in the english class because he he was bossy to the people he had problems with the teacher he had previously testified he did not like being in large groups of people he became anxious he had a panic attack so it certainly doesn't seem like that his his performance or his dropping out of his english class  was any indication to his ability to work when the jobs were identified to a kind when the jobs would be identified accommodated the limitations found by the  tasks but i would just like to point out that that the agency does not there's no court direct correlation and there's no no direct correlation between the reasoning development level and any certain mental functional limitation and marina mr schultz did or did recognize that this court has not addressed the issue however the tenth circuit and the third circuit in the cases cited in our brief do do recognize there's no direct correlation and even if they still even have one or two steps tests and again would you not i would just like to it's a very big record so i'd like to point out just a few pages of the record for the court to consider that's six thirty seven to six fifty one those are two thousand and seven records from d consistent over that five year period of time where dr gonzalez is recognizing that when mr marino comes in to see him he has moved as often depressed as afaik the set is sometimes tearful sometimes a suicidal ideations he's distracted he's irritable and this goes on over a seven year period l j points out the two thousand and thirteen treatment note that do seem to indicate that with structure mr marino did better toward pointed out and user of the call that the fact that somebody responds to treatment can be a far cry from the person's ability to go back into the workforce in addition you'll see when if you look at these pages that back in two thousand and seven mr marino doing better when he tried to schedule his activities then in two thousand and thirteen again he's doing better when he tries to schedule his activities but in the meantime he's still consistently having these very significant symptoms the last thing i'd like to point out is that the case of the defendant sites and briefed on the one to two step task issue don't actually address that issue they talked about but if there's a limitation to simple work can the person engaged in a variety of jobs within reasoning levels but that doesn't go to the heart of our plaintiffs argument here which is that the limitation to one of the two step tasks should have been presented to the vocational expert to get an expert