benefits the principle basically says that it order to have a marked for extreme limitation in one of the six domains not all of the domains activities or functions  a little boy with a marked inability to stand and walk not also need to show that he has serious upper externality problems as well  girl with severe even life threatening anorexia can have a marked or extreme limitation in the domain of caring for yourself even if she has good personal hygiene functional equivalent without it some considerable fraction of the children who now qualify for benefits might no longer qualify for the saying that c l f for test scores alone of our should have been enough for the l t to conclude that she had a marked limitation in one or more argument or the regulations well i think in a way i think so my reading of the regulations is that a valid  you can't rely on the test score alone but i do believe that the regulations prioritize standardized tests today helping won't be emptier to look at other pieces of information that gentlemanly have a child can't have a marked level language limitation if the i q scores are also low because learning disabilities and language to sorters it's the child's i q is consistent with his learning scores or consistent since language course then there's no learning disability there's simply mental retardation or or intellectual deficit so if you if you pay attention to the broad main concern but which as i say is critical you cannot find that a language score of say sixty five is contradicted by an i q of eighty or one hundred in fact in that situation the only reason you're considered to have of language disability is because there is this disparity between i q and language school and other evidence cited by the court i mean there are multiple references the court cited the fact that  our our own speech was intelligible and clear but speech of course is a completely different thing can language children who garbled their words and have to go to a speech therapist so they her teacher who said that are always able to relate her experiences tell stories in appropriate language situation and in two thousand and fifteen age appropriate expressive and receptive language and you know of course we have a substantial evidence standard which is fairly different deferential to the a l j so it's hard for me to say that the a l j was simply wrong in relying on that evidence the determination that the day to day why he chose not to credit the mark level standardized language test and he never even mentions in passing that you have those scores he doesn't say  at a minimum there is no way this can be turned because it's not articulated and there is a large body of district court cases citing precisely failure in language cases involving the self who are the other answer i would have troops in fact teacher report this is the teacher who has had the girl in her classroom for about a month and on the acquiring information page acquiring using information page she says she's got real problems with all these five or six different language  functions and when she turns to the social page it's true she doesn't really check the language function ten i just think it's obvious that she is saying the child has language problems to the one he made we don't really the fact that he didn't articulate his reasoning is irrelevant on the other hand we're more than one decision is possible that is precisely when thirteen f suggested that he was focusing as much on what the current status of our was which and the record suggested that there had been improvement that the whole family dynamic was i that reflected admission in twenty four teams and its final session twenty scheme and suggested much improvement and that would have spoken to the period after the why he credited or gave more weight to what aspects of a fairly lengthy and complicated record were the basis for his decision generally i think there were two cases when he inconsistency or just asserted that the evidence doesn't support the alleged loss of functioning but i found very little reasoning here to examine and that was the basis for my question earlier about whether we should record but what i didn't see was the ale j reasoning from that record and giving an account of what counted what about what evidence should be weighed heavily and what she weighed less could you point us to parts of questioned r r o and her mother about her background activities academic performance behavior medication and symptoms for years cited simply to no authority for the proposition that and israel chased to the to the record extent to record for truth and that had not yet begun at the time of the hearing that may or may not have existed particularly where as here the claimant had before and years of matching medical and chad just quickly on the issue of the sufficiency of the ale j s explanation of this decision the court need that require much but in a situation where there  is standardized test data showing the child is clearly disabled if that data is credited at a minimum the court has to require the ale ga to acknowledge the existence of that data and in some manner explain why he chose not to credit it i mean the judge has got to say something along the lines of i know there are these test scores i know they sure were marked in the patient i'm choos i however am persuaded by this other evidence if the judge goes that they were confident that he's at least read the test scores and knows they're significant in this case we can have no such confidence if the court were decisions cited pages forty and forty one of our initial brief which come down on precisely this issue and there in each case under very similar circumstances  pattern is to improve and then to relapse and to improve and then to relapse that's why she had to restart therapy at you know they discontinued therapy after she successfully entered st grade august she is diagnosed with significant psychiatric problems at that point and the aylesbury doesn't issue his decision for another two months at a minimum he should advise the parents to look why they might be important and and ask to see them if they exist before he issued his decision i don't point is i think the important issue in this case really involved with broad domain principle the court needs to recognise that to have a mark to a limitation in the domain the child only needs to be impaired in one aspect of the government and fine moreover under the combination of principle the a l j should have been adding up her other impairments to factories her i q was only seventy seven is significant the fact that she's