disability we asked that the court reversed it on the ground that there is not substantial evidence in the record to support the denial i really rely on the details of the briefs that we submitted a primarily the first brief i submitted i guess i guess what i'd like to focus on here maybe just to take it from a different angle is you know the residual functional capacity determination that the administrative law judge made was kind of critical certainly at least to the to the final determination that the judge made and he says two things in his r f c analysis that we feel not supported by any evidence in iraq or one is the l j says well you know he has no cognitive limitations and he can work towards daily goals there's a con or two of the main things that the ail jay said in his r f c analysis and yet if you really look at the record that i appendix not only from doctoral attorney who was the treating psychiatry has for more than fifteen years but really all the other record evidence the dr shah dri was a psychiatry as the psychologist sherry schwartz psychological evaluation from santa maria and the ph d evaluation from langfitt all of them talk about difficulty concentrating lack of cognitive focus cannot make appropriate decisions and none of them really so there's no evidence in this record to support the conclusion that there's no cognitive limitations and then the same analysis really goes for the daily can work towards daily goals you know if you really look at the test in terms of the dinners so doctor the tuna was and he pronounces the he in one of his progress notes says associations are intact thinking is generally logical and thought constant content is appropriate cognitive functioning is into act and he is fully oriented so you tell me you just told us that there's no evidence and yet from his own treating psychiatrist there's evidence of no apparent significant cognitive dysfunction well i think the problem is again i think that i misread that or no i don't think you misrata but i think the problem is that the record has to be looked at as a whole and it has this is treating psychiatrist it's treating psychologist but it's treating psychiatrist notes over the course of several years and that may reflect one particular visit but the fact is when you have a disabling the prashant is that you know some of the cases i've noted before you can't just really look in isolation at one particular note from a particular visit this through a job to get a job his analyst but we should look at more than that as well yeah i mean again i don't think that i think this is really what it comes down to if you really look at what the  decision was he went through the medical evidence and he essentially does candidate and then really on page eleven he says he notes that the coin it was able to provide investment advice to university committees watch documentaries  he was able to negotiate the sale of his business which the record shows he had sold to household repairs for his mother the problem is we're we're used to psychiatric or psychological opinion in this record that shows that those are significant factors in assessing the disability to us in other words don't you need a psychiatrist to say that claimants ability to do those things that i just listed shows he has the quote ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis and when it's a mental health impairment that we're talking about i think that kind of psychiatric evidence is critical in the case there isn't any psychiatric or psychological opinion that turner's opinion that he has these cognitive limitations and is disabled is consistent with the actual opinion of all the other doctors and looked at him in the case there's no doctor in the record that says oh this man can work not the only thing that the l j did was pick out things for example which your honor may be highlighted or pick out things like i just listed well he watches documentaries or can do repairs at his mother's home a doctor dr team and i saw that in the end the government's brief there's nothing in any of the session that even cites the doctor chain minutes far as i could say as far as i could see in his opinion nothing there's no reference to  dr chaman at all and in any event even if you took whatever doctor team and said it was completely outweighed by all the other opinions in the case and again it has to be substantial evidence to support it so you know i really think that it i think the most important thing for the court to look at is what what actually is in the record psychiatrically that supports the l g s ultimate conclusion that he has no cognitive limitations and can work towards daily goals which is really the basis for finding that he has no disability there's nothing in there there's no psychiatric opinion that counters will turn out and all the psychological and psychiatric opinions are consistent no no problem at all i know this is not the optimum way to try to conduct these arguments but did you make this argument about the need for an independent psychiatrist before the district court i wasn't actually an attorney but as far as i could see in the record no i don't think they said hey we need an independent psychiatrist there so perhaps that argument is subject to waiver analysis but but i think the diovan are all central point is even just looking at what was actually in the record in other words of the a l j said ok he has no cognitive limitations i mean what medical or psychiatric evidence does he base that conclusion there isn't any psychiatrist who says the man is not disabled from a severe disabling the prussians standpoint if there was something in the record that said that then i think i would have a completely losing argument but the fact that that evidence is absent from the record shows that  decision to go the other way essentially and reject dr all of turner's opinions is not supported by the substantial evidence there and that's really the crux of my argument here before the court and the crux of your argument just so i'm understanding that even though there is evidence of his physical abilities as we have already discussed it is that that that ability to engage in certain physical activity does not address the mental problems that he happens exactly and in order to really sit in order to practically assess that evidence you need to psychiatry is to say well here's given that he can do these things i find he can do the following psychiatric opinion evidence to support the r f c you know whether it was whether it was needed and whether the absence of that poses a problem for the secretary in this case the commissioner maintains that problems and this may significantly interfere with the claimants ability to function on a daily basis that is correct your honor however the r of c does limit rusin to no supervision of others work occasional decision making working toward daily or monthly goals and an additional three less than five minute breaks per day the commissioner agrees that rusin can no longer perform his past relevant work as a c e o and that he has lost some of those abilities as a result of his depression however when kids the treatment notes even from dr lynn turner all that included logical thoughts intact cognitive functioning fare to intact judgment and normal attention consistently there was evidence that supported uses major depressive disorder severe correct he does have major depressive disorder found that at step however appropriately found by weighing the treatment notes the opinion evidence and loosens activities of daily living which included some high functioning and giving advice on an endowment at harvard remaining on the president circle at the rochester institute of technology occasionally doing home repairs for his mother and that is treatment notes consistently indicated logical thoughts the ultimate diagnosis is he he's got a significant problem he does have a severe impairment of depression and the a l j found that at step two however jay went on to find in the r depression in particular we the commissioner maintains that providing dr bitterness opinion with little weight was supported by the record and that they l j appropriately consider the regulations when providing that opinion with little w intact insight and judgment had appropriate thought content and at one point he even encouraged rusin to seek purpose they're getting a job more over the treatment notes from other treating sources including dr  maintain a regular schedule maintain attention and concentration and complete simple and complex tasks at this this wouldn't job far from the job that's that's yes that's correct honor the under the regulations what the l g s has to do is not only consider whether a claimant can do his past relevant work in this case a c e o but also whether claimant can perform work that exist how much we're check beef if you were given disability benefits i'm not actually sure if the it was the amount of a month or so every or something i don't believe it's connected to the former salary and it is different can based on whether a person is applying for title to disability or title sixteen in this case it's only title to disability insurance benefits what is subject to disability disability insurance benefits title two is for people who have performed quarters of work in the past security right yes it's in contrast with supplemental security income which is for people earning or who earned below a certain income threshold where you don't you can put in i don't know the exact number i believe it may be different with every claimant i'm not one who does the calculation of benefits so and i would just like to wrap up by saying in that in this situation the l j appropriately considered the record as a whole as he has tested do when determining the r f c and that it appropriately took into