you your honor and good morning to the members of the panel my name is jim o'brien i'm representing bravery mergen collar and in order to assist my focus is going to be on the  accident in two thousand and six where he may have even lost consciousness when he got on the other side of that crash he not only have physical anomalies happening to him but he have principally mental disorders that attended him and i have been a part of his life since then and while there are other issues that the court may want to acquire about i channeled i'm focusing on two issues one is the some of his information to discount the mental struggles that mr merton tyler was happening realises he's nothing more than any other source of medical information that is open as we said in the breach your honor there is a vacillation on the th circuit there is some consideration and individuals who are supervised qualified individuals might become larry let's just assume that he's another source ok that that's fine so with regard to doctor herman one dollar one  is that somehow the l j went from her description of the mental disorders to saying this is only limited to his role as a custodian and if one actually reviews what she said there fears anxiety about pain sudden death episodic and attendant excruciating pain and that he's been caught constantly on pins and needles but has nothing to do with that limitation associated with on limiting her the extent of her opinion she had available to her the report of the university of vermont you know he didn't completely he didn't completely discredited i guess it was his opinion that in in two thousand and eighteen or sixteen the look back the relevant time period and he said his ultimate opinion there that he couldn't work at all was undermined by his treatment knows which are quite extensive yes even up through the relevant time period yes he get it but that was the observation but it was  g learning from shanks was at times proved helpful and yes other times it did make a difference in you know we are not here to  twelve thousand and eleven yes right we're looking in limited time period so yes doesn't really make too much difference for our purposes what his condition was like at the time of the here we have to look back  understand that but my point is your honor that despite improvements he still struggles with these daily problems associated with suicidal ideation and fears and anxiet  discounting the treating providers or for discounting the credit adverse credibility determination to break that down for example in the adverse credibility the record i believe this are going to has relied heavily on the idea that there is a requirement that it not be asked to state identify specific and legitimate reasons may please the court jordan goddard appearing on behalf of the commissioner of social security good morning your honour's mr morgan dollar certainly did have issues at the beginning of the alleged creative disability from p t s d and mild depression following a car accident several years earlier and while dr hook and raptor did give the opinion it september two thousand and nine that she believed mr mergen dollar would be disabled for the following year the l g recently found that the treatment notes didn't actually support that that product prognostication and in particular mr shanks treatment notes are very very informative here they show that well mr bergen suller did have anger issues particularly early on once he gauged in treatment taking both medication and getting involved in regular counseling he improved significantly and the able chain was reasonable and making this  finding that finding is supported by the opinion doctor and right a psychologist who testified at one of the hearings and gave the opinion that the treatment record showed improvement and did not show disabling limitations there are a number of examples that mr station around two thousand and twelve when mr morgan starr went to a divorce so just sort of as an initial note i want to point out that a lot of this testimony actually doesn't involve the relevant period that we're talking about here today it's a later period  treated nose in you focused on shank's notice but yes dr her going to rather have her own treatment knows as well and if you look at her treatment knows during the relevant time period they document pretty clearly what his stick around through the whole period she actually moved her practice i believe it was before the one year period had expired from may th two thousand and ninety ledged onset date to one year later i  don't have the exact in front of me but she did not continue on as a primary care provider mr shanks who was originally working under her supervision took over the treatment with out going rathore and in fact if we i would concede that when we look at those early treatment notes right when he begins serious treatment they do reflect some some serious issues but we have to keep in mind that there is a will continuous months requirement here and so we need to look to the treatment notes that are towards the end of that one year period to determine how much he has improved because the l g s rationale focuses on the improvement in that one year period not just doesn't find that there was never an issue to begin with and so we're looking at dr her going raptors notes we have to keep in mind that it's very very early in the treatment process and doesn't really he summarizes the treaty notes and what not makes reference to them but he nonetheless concludes that during that period of time that we're in dollar was does it you know was not able to work what do we do with that if he got a waiting or he's summarizing his own treatment no nonetheless reaches a conclusion that he was not able to work well ju jay's interpretation is entitled to deference as long as it's a rational one and that is a very deferential standard and in this case we have to keep in mind that the dale chayes interpretation of those treatment records is affectively supported by dr ann wri the medical expert who testified at one of the hearings reached very very similar conclusions and so this is not an unusual situation of a treatment provider providing an opinion for the purposes of disability saying this person can't work and my treatment notes support it but the l j reads those treatments differently and it's a it's a rational interpretation and when you have these competing interpretations so long as the a any sort of deference or heightened standard when it comes to considering his opinion so as long as the able jay was rational in finding no these treatment notes say something very different then the able to buy the must be upheld and thirty two dollars last paragraph we have the summary of mr shanks treatment notes it goes on it's technically only one paragraph but it's an extremely long paragraph and he summarizes the treatment notes in some detail i don't think i'm going out on the limb to say that the court can reasonably infer from that when you have a very very long paragraph that probably should've been three or four paragraphs that summarizes those treatment notes and points out along the way where these inconsistences are where he's mentioning improvement you believe to to engage in greater activities and then the able to points back to that and same way that they would consider any other evidence to give any particular ways to that evidence if he able to identify his reasons for not giving weight then the say something though the standards set by this court are very low this court has said that the age and you don't need only to supply reasons germane to the witness and of course the substantial evidence standard is the standard of review as supreme court has recently reminded us in cases like the stack it is a very very low and deferential standard ok thank you and so we i think you lea other stores are not able to provide their own interpretation based on their experience and the records they made as a basis that can be ignored because it's not clearly set forth in those records themselves it is our he's ition that that's inaccurate it's almost borders on foolishness because we all take notes in our professions as do the others these other sources of medical doctors and those are triggers to remind us of the experiences we value with the people that we serve and so i think the bets on with out the ale j outlining specific legitimate reasons why a trader's such as shanks or treaters such as dr willoughby can go back over their notes and provide a more sophisticated robust binion is not a proper treatment of this these are not individuals who are designed to conform to the specific demands of a j or what is in fact in their records they they they are not social security employees they are mere medical providers and so to hold them to a standard they should be aware specific regulations would