injury or traumatic brain injury and the extent of there is some conflict in the records showing your honor but there was some indication she was in a coma for up to ten days there was other evidence that perhaps she had recovered somewhat within five days but you really suggest she was in a coma for ten days when the medical records clearly reflect that she was transferred from the opinions of her mental and physical health health if i make the argument that dr knight did seem to do a decent job are reviewing the various opinions and concluding that cutting him suffered and substantial evidence the way i understand it is not the same as what i decide the case the same is whether that conclusion is supported and it basically the trier of fact is the one that resolves those issues  not on creating physicians however if you then look at the very consistent opinions of doctors niger and dr richardson who have been consistently i think as  there's been that alcoholism materially contributed to disability i think under the latest cases and i think bustamante comes to my mind your honor but immediately and i think you have to go through a process to determine if they're  they have to decide number worn whether they be disabled without the use of alcoholism and i think in that case the claimant prevails i think if the only factor that makes them disabled  alcoholism then i think the claimant lose and if if they can't make a distinction between the two then i think the claimant can prevail so how alcohol pearson specifically with the organic brain injury against the the evidence would have to give whether or not she would be independently disabled and i think that both doctors rowing dr reports disability claimants credibility in this case was clearly impacted by her three criminal misdemeanor convictions for the crime of giving false information by her inconsistent statements by the secondary gain motivations that were didn't in the evidence and by the absence of objective medical evidence that she had anything wrong with her physically or mentally that would prevent her from working or how was the alcohol factored into that because didn't you know i mean alcoholics keeping track of their drinking is might not be the best measure of a person's credibility how was that factored into the credibility fine finding on her  judged me dr mcknight testified that with the impact of alcohol she would have had moderate to market limitations in social functioning and concentration and and her activities of daily living but without the impact of consuming disregard them yes under the case time he must ocular out the impacts of her continued drinking  gardening cooking shopping socializing and addition she made inconsistent statements regarding the amount of times she worked in different jobs she very ably denied that she had legal problems how does that affect your credibility in your ability to remember i mean because obviously you've got the one thing that you get if you get deep and credibility findings for being inconsistent if your alcoholism affects your ability to remember things accurately just you know how does that is that fair it is because if you look at all of the examining physicians reports ms cunningham was able to give very detailed histories of what has happened to her in her life and clearly the alcohol wasn't affecting her concentration when she took the objective tests for example and the trail making test she performed in the average range and in fact there was some question about whether she was faking bad in these more in the simpler trail making e he's not a mental health expert he is a medical doctor and why isn't his opinion that cunningham met listed impairments of aspect of just order and memory impediment why is that unreliable me if that the record says that he wasn't just ruled out it's a no you can't give an opinion on this it's just i don't find it supported by substantial evidence with everything you know i don't think your conclusion is supported by substantial evidence that's exactly what happened they only looked at all of the evidence and he considered dr mcknight's testimony and dr mcknight was the only doctor who had an opportunity to look at all of the evidence and substantial evidence did not support the opinion that the claimant was disabled due to her mental impairment we have her performing very well on the average or above average range on her i q tests on or less for memory tests on the and them key i or she's speaking bad and then we have her performing fairly well on the trail goes against the claimants testimony that she was inhibited in her village remember to what to do next and that she needed to call her boyfriend to help her remember what to do next given the object of testing given her quote  deficit and fund of knowledge that suggests that she may have been faking bad throughout her claim that dr ro notes that her fund of knowledge regarding whether she remembered it was the president during the civil war who martin luther king was where africa