attempt to obtain disability benefits and solve her housing problems however a review of the decision and the medical records shows that that mr la judge disregarded all of the mental status exemption findings from november of two thousand she was initially evaluated for depression this turned into severe anxiety and hopelessness during two thousand and one and by the end of two thousand when she was suffering from psychosis the last record of the last time she visited  was in january early january of two thousand and two and she appeared to be unkempt and pale one month later she was dead from an overdose of antidepressant and pain medication appellant contends that the administrative law judge mischaracterized the medical evidence and should be found to have misapplied the law when he failed to make any finding with regards to her severe anxiety disorder without explanation counseling with respect because as he said she appeared to have only been prescribing medications every three months but we contend that the mr la judge did not properly apply the rules for evaluating and weighing the opinions of an accepted medical source that he should have used the criteria set forth in those regulations here for determining whether her treatment as a start as a treating physician was according to accepted medical practice we contend also that the minister of law judge erred when he failed to consider whether the combination of her depression bipolar disorder and hearings that these disorders equal the listings counsel for the commissioner also asserts that the male j properly evaluated and discredited her allegations of subject complaints on the grounds that she had exaggerated the severity of her physical impairments and her attempts to obtain just of the benefits provided her with financial incentive to exaggerate however we again  cashier the district court found that there was no air in the midst of law judge for ignoring dr greenleaf determination that mrs block's is bipolar disorder prevented her from doing work that out my brief here there could be several ways we're not here to make facts our way you certainly are not your honor well we have to remind it if the record is unclear that the findings are not supported by the evidence of record this case should be remitted you're on why do you say evidence that substantial does not support the finding that she had passed from work as a court cashier do you think it's possible that the ale jay misinterpreted the start date of five ninety nine for three ninety nine i believe that may have been the case wron that to the other side to be thinking about it as to determine the for earnings that could affect whether she had substantial whether she had gainful work activity here so you're down to two and a half minutes you want a q do you i think it would be fair to characterize it we know there was one meeting where there was the treatment team needing and dr pappas and lindholm were involved  but all of len home contacts with claimants seem to be centered around contacting the hearings office and social security and obtaining  first of all she alleged it disabling back impairment and disabling depression for several years but there was absolutely no treatment until social security sent her to consultative examinations in may of two greenleaf and dr levy found made findings that were conflicting independent findings from what dr pappas with later playing were the findings that she recorded how did  there seems to be some confusion here between may and march and arithmetic right was dumped of levels of the claimant worked for a campground for about five months according to her  months and usually social security divides the number of months by the amount earns as she earned three thousand eight hundred seventy seven dollars and that would come to a little over six hundred dollars a month for that five month period the way she described her job it sounded as if she did cashier duty as she did operate a cashier and it seems that the calculation of income falls below person of levels what she was holding that you thought was i don't believe so although it's a bus or something and charging people funds for that it's a little unclear whether she also worked at a pizza restaurant burden shifts to the commissioner to show that she can adjust to other work and the commissioner can either use a vocational expert or the grids but it seems the grids deal with physical exertion and the kind of problems we're dealing with in this case are why was it appropriate to even look to the grids well the grid stu describe different exertional levels but the algae or the social security agent cater can still use the medical vocational rules as a guideline when the cla commissioner's contention that the grids by themselves identify unskilled jobs and then szell demands of unskilled jobs require an ability to perform on a sustained basis simple instructions relate appropriately to coworkers and supervisors and adapt to routine changes with respect to dr greenleaf's concerned that the claimant should have little peer or public contact the commissioners also noted that the bulk of unskilled relevant work it's just that if this court were to find that there were not was not sufficient evidence to support the l g s finding that her past relevant that her past work was past relevant work because it was not performed commissioner in her vocation rules had added an additional rule if you will to favor older workers that is as the worker gets older that the commissioner bears a burden acceptable medical source we agree she's not but we contend that her opinion should have been evaluated as other medical evidence this court has never really directly considered that issue it was mentioned in passing in the benton case but in a better case the has recently published a ruling zero six three peat in the federalist or in august of this year which states that up until that time there were no standards for evaluating and weighing the opinions of other medical sources but that from then on the same standards that were used or plied to evaluate treating acceptable medical sources twenty has issues that is sections oral for fifteen twenty seven for sixty nine twenty seven were to be applied to evaluate opinions from other medical sources