first i think it's important to focus on what we're talking about here but your social security disability insurance benefits and the supreme court held that individuals have a property right that when these cases very viewed that the agency will comply with their regulations and their rulings the agency has stated that they would do so  has stated they should do so and so has the eighth circuit so if we look at the a l j decision and we start in this case the a l j erred  decision he simply stated there is no evidence of nerve root compression in my grief i point out that there are indeed and so the a l j didn't go on to make the other findings counsel attempts to do so in her brief but that another factor of the courts agree on there can be no post hoc rational stations it was for the a l j to make that kind the other listings security rolling you look at ninety six p which specifically talks about state agencies state agencies physicians opinion and it tells us that the judge has to look at the complete case record not pick and choose that we're looking at whether the claimant can sustain performance not do it once in a while and here we have doctors treating  that we have individuals that are helping him by grocery make appointments that ten doctor's appointments with him and we have their opinion listen to what the individual say review what they say when you're making your determination and any other see that six o three piece so to simply say they're not acceptable medical sources is not acceptable the judge needed to review what they sat and you do not see that in his decision he simply gives a little weight so every doctor that interacted with the claim does started their opinion but the one who never started claim it and only reviewed the other doctor's records and only reviewed the evidence through five or thirteen and really is a r you may very well thank you for your argument the court my name is the engineer part mullard and i represent the commissioner plan has made a number of arguments about what's wrong with the decision but it's important to keep in mind that the standard is and the supreme court has said to me those scenes in cut off her view except for three claimant has to show every one of the criteria same if he wants to show equal compression that was required and even if he did there's no there's evidence he did not have the deficit's and range of motion and he did not have the loss of strength and at we evidence supports that finding that he did not meet the listening for his cervical spine impairments with regard to the mental list in the l j i went through the analysis considered the four factors the daily activities social function concentration persistence and pace and that episodes of d compensation he did not just hand over his dut own he had a caseworker but she saw him for an hour a week it wasn't like she was checking in every day making sure he took his meds not the kind of structured environment that the listings contemplate and turning to the r f c finding again there substantial evidence that supports clean of could perform the range of simple light  supporting the light work and the a l j added limitations like no overhead work no vibration that again are reasonable for someone with a history of cervical spinal surgery with regard to the mental limitations of plano testified he didn't get along with people like the eiseley but then there was also evidence that throughout the record he was cooperative significantly limited interacting he can own can't interact with the public and can only occasionally interact with supervisors in koper hers that is supported when you look at the record fair to good and bad and additionally consistent with the state agency opinion and it's also consistent with his ability to pay his own bills live on his own care for his care for his mom take it together substantial evidence to support that r f c plaintiff and her mechanical parts and isolated environment when you pull up the definition in the d o t and companion publication so they specifically say for all these jobs there is no moving mechanical parts and additionally they indicate these are not jobs or interacting whole lot with other people so there is no conflict between the vocational experts testimony experts testimony plaintiff was able to perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy and therefore he was not disabled under the social security act i want to kind of wrap around back to the nerve root compression comments and mainly because the scientific evidence is there to sort of somewhat puzzling for me i mean it's strikes me or do we just go right from that point we say well it's still not listed so we still have to look at what is the the sort of impact on the ability for you to  you know like great emotion great strength those sorts of things right that the a l j thought the evidence showed that there wasn't the nerve compression that at best is unclear in the record  and it is playing a burden and there's definitely evidence that he his range of motion with find his strength was mine and when it wasn't there was a statement that that was to his failure to put forth the effort if we meaning the case to discuss those additional factors in this case it doesn't seem like it necessary because it's pretty clear he doesn't meet those other criteria for that listing even if you think there's a question on the nerve or a compression well i'm just puzzled by it and like i'd like a real explanation as to is to what happened and why if there was no nerve root compression but i guess that's that and like i said it in my question it's kind of inherent they still say well what if you come back down doesn't matter because you have a lot of sort of physical  difficulties but if there's not a functional impairment at some point did you know it doesn't matter from a disability analysis right right with the listings you have to have the diagnosis and the functional limitations because diagnoses affect different people differently and it is a very stringent standard to meet all those criteria and in this case the decision wouldn't initially your honors i would like to point out that i claim it does not have to meet the criteria of a listed impairment you can meet an impairment or you can equal and parent out every regulation ruling in social security the so security administration says we will develop your record in this case the very listing said get his surgery report and the a l j requested the records and he requested the record after the surgery the port he knew the surgery was in september thirteenth the listings have stated that screw show evidence we need that evidence and he chose not to get it for this and represented claim that he could have even asked the claimant to get it if he had records from the fall point well it doesn't appear so the follow up appointment after the surgery there's one told once this damage the severe damage he was a laborer all his life he paid into social security he was a laborer all his life he worked with mental impairment until this pain became too much and you'll see that in the records in you'll see him don't lead talk about how he can't use his hands how it feels like he has gloves on so there are functional limitations they were observed people when he went in to see dr gray and dr adams they noted he could not use his hands and then on the range of motion i just wanted to point out a couple things that dr jeffrey spring member he said is sensually normal he didn't say normal competent make these observations and we have to have report right now we don't we have very few reports they were requested we have some pain management reports before the surgery we have one report after the surgery from a doctor who we don't even know who this doctor is and he says to be as tolerated now look does that mean if he if he said do anything you want he has no limitations he would have said that he said as tolerated this doctor well he as the records show and again we have to look at the complete case record he didn't he didn't have the punching they had served him why would all the treating in examining their opinion you know that's what they decided they said he has serious limitations he's not in touch with reality and has hallucinations they're document we're talking about eight hours a day five days a week missing no more than one day of work per month he had to have people come to him to go to a doctor's appointment he lived in a very small trailer he did not take care of this dog please look at the adult financial report