y imposed with respect to the graduate radiations with the weight of trying to different types of positions that i've seen or simply review the medical evidence more specifically this case is about in the sense that these statements that it rained on monday but it did not rain on tuesday on their face are inconsistent with each other because i'm saying that it did rain and it did not rain but simple logic tells us that they're not inconsistent because i'm talking about two different testimony and issuing a decision finding and not to save the problem with that is that the treating physician offered a contemporary opinion in october of two thousand and two just before the l g issue decision describing mr brown's condition is a question of the weight then the credibility that the administrative law judge has to determine based upon the various opinions and records that are before him over the period of time  the answer is that you're correct your honor that the other has to consider the whole record but the reality is and as i understand it the problem that the a l j identified was that the opinion that you're talking about the october two thousand and two isn't that the one where he just checked the forms the boxes on the form and that the judges concern was where are the clinical findings in the record the medical records that support the boxes and then he considers the evaluations from others who have looked at your client and he has to resolve if you will the credibility and decide which to believe isn't that what this case is all about in general your honor you the night is appealed the ministry to within the ministry of appeal process is reminded with the delays in getting new hearings and decisions several years have passed we end up having an l j making a decision on in december of two thousand and two based  evidence that was generated through a one time examination only and august of one thousand nine hundred eighty or at best in january of two thousand but about our case law basically says you know we normally give the heaviest weight to the treating physician correct but as i understand the record here the problem is there's just not much of there in terms of the record by the treating physician that that it would have helped the a l j if the doctor had explained why you know expert which is often done to basically do what your honour's has as mention we've got these onetime examiners whether they in my opinion were remote in time or at least if they are valid and we can see that if this decision had been made in two thousand or two thousand and be considered to be a even a mark level but that was a very brief duration but at the time of the hearing and based on her review the record she agreed with dr chose opinion that he was at best moderate moderate correct and then i'll go ahead that your client is in eligible for benefits while these from my point of view yes it would be but the alternative remedy would be and again back to my issue of time if if you get a court agrees that someone has seen someone once in  a lot of these cases where i've gotten cases remember from the district court i've got a individual who saw someone in two thousand i'm back at a hearing in two thousand and six and i told judge the last picture you have the size my training doctor which obviously is going to find him disabled because the doc you know th we ever going to get finality and these cases if we if that becomes the standard disposition because of delays that are inherent in the appellate your concern is one of this court has expressed as a frustration with many examination and see what he's what's going on with him today because i was two thousand children the problem i have of your argument in a perfect world i would agree with you that everything would be done in a very compressed fashion but you we've got principles of jurisprudence that say that we review the record that was before the administrative law judge and that's what we're reviewing on appeal you're asking us in athens to expand or supplement the record based on what the situation is to day we also have a body of case  the burden is on that the applicant seeking the benefits to show that he meets or equals the listings and now you've raised an issue as to whether or not thirty percent is a disability if i guy you know i could see some employers saying if a person is five percent disabled i don't want that person working because i don't want him unable to work five percent of the time you are raising some issues here that i think are very problematic from a judicial and public policy with much respect for the consideration of the step three issue is different than a consideration of the step five issue just because something is not the still at step three just because the commission has it conceded that step three the thirty percent limitation  mean that once someone gets to set for step five with vocational testimony that as in this case it's clear this is the same work but what do we do with the ve testimony that essentially says that there is sufficient residual functional capacity to do a expert so that there would be no occupations available to this person so with my discussion with judge johnson was i think only you're correct if we assume that the l j incorrectly as of two thousand t accept my client the alternative remount that would allow the administration if we don't accept doctor to the opinions based on the concerns that just common is mentioned with respect to we only have a short form that was filled out although my response is dr bord consider the training opinion they'll take and called a medical expert never actually offered an opinion that was consistent with that two thousand and two opinion and yet the l g simply glossed over it and my point is i understand your frustration with the so my my ultimate concern too was with a l j and on page thirteen of the ministry of transcription his this isn't where he said that his opinion was consistent with respect to the functional limitations with dr bourne's testimony and that's another problem because we'll take yes this case back call dr morton dr warren doesn't say anything that he actually wants her to say and that he just simply either ignores it or writes in his decision it's consistent and i like opinions from four years ago consultation psychiatric evaluation of dr lawrence now because dr i'll be cheese report was based on independent clinical findings it constituted substantial evidence chee after a mental status examination found no evidence of psychotic disorders or delusional disorders in the claimant he diagnosed substance induced mood disorders based on past marijuana and cocaine us he found fame and had no restrictions on daily activity no difficulty maintaining social functioning he was capable of understanding remembering and carrying out simple commands the l g also relied on the january third two thousand adam and all primed and l j noted they claim it could understand remember and follow complex instructions maintain concentration and pace at work and interact efficiently with peers and supervisors but he also noted the claim not necessarily the post office but in general mail clerk position dealing with dealing with with with mail or delivery or did with delivery of of me like in a law firm where it where the person delivers the exactly like a are not supported by objective medical evidence therefore they can be given minimum evidence jury weight even as a treating physician so the l g a did properly reject dr seuss opinion as having minimum evidentiary weight because they used this checkbox for without the supporting mental status examination or some objective evidence to to support those functional limitations that between position opined you know i was just looking at the c r of pages forty and eighty one maybe seventy nine to eighty one where the vocational expert is testifying and i was trying to get a date of last well there w other work a person could perform i guess he's like that and the expert says well you know i consider moderate limitations significant and any he says there's a thirty percent he says or there's work no matter how simple a lot of people can't do it no matter what the work is now that doesn't say that he can do his work as a clerk or all that the work that he could do came from the vocational experts can come up with any work this guy can do is that right that is try to honor but the hypothetical that was posed was based on moderate limitations of doctor to which the a l j properly rejected because they were based on checkbox forms and not based on objective medical evidence so the jail j did correctly give dr choose moderate limitations minimum evidence jury weight and he did pose that hypothetical to the but he ultimately concluded that there were no modern limitations th might even if we say well we accept everything dr chu said with these moderate limitations still that's not enough to entitle him to benefits why not well the second location will experts said that you're correct that the past relevant work claimant could not do what he said was that the claimant would have difficulty doing other work in the national economy he did not dispositive least they claim it could not do any work in the national economy he said there'd be a thirty percent reduction but at least seventy per cent would have to be determination made as to whether or not there are other jobs in the national economy that this claim and could do because he only said the claimant would have difficulty performing did not take time it could not perform any work in significant numbers in the national economy so the commissioners position would be that substantial evidence supports the l g s decision in this case based on the c opinion and the rejection of dr shu because he used this checkbox form which was not based on objective evidence but assuming argue window that the doctor choose later limitations are are clickable there would have to be testimony on whether or not complain that our claimant could perform other work in the national economy because it's not clear what would the applicant do what he called dr shu unsafe act or issue you may guess check moderate impairment on your form why did you do that what did you base that on and then form and there was no objective findings supporting the checkbox form it was properly rejected how do we know whether dr shu did or did not look into this other evidence that apparently was in the file how do we know that other well the main reason he gave is it wasn't supported by any objective evidence the district court agreed with the ale j s analysis in again a finding that there was no objective evidence that dr chu referred to in utilizing the checkbox form so that was the primary reason the details jake gave for the rejection of dr chu and the the use of the consultation examiner substantial evidence to support his opinion as to claimants residual dr choose records but his ultimate conclusion is on functional limitations there was no there was no evidence referred to as far as like like i said for example mental status examination which goes through kind of this is whether or not he referred to objective findings and he did not he only used a checkbox form and that was that was issued the district court had and they l j had it if he if dr chu did have objective records the impairments were brought on by a substance of substance abuse type of disorder from prior drug usage but there are other records from the arcadia mental health center the a l j did review its treating records  and noted in his in his opinion let me just let me take a look  from the arcadia mental health center including doctor choose treatment records those are in the records they were all in the arcadia mental health center correct there since far as we know there are no missing records from doctors who we functional capacity dr choose opinion is not being based on objective medical evidence and he rejected dr choose update in october of two thousand and two because that also was a checkbox form that did not change in  opinion from two thousand and five when two thousand and one no new functional limitations were found by dr chu and again it was based on a checkbox form this updated two thousand and two opinion check the same boxes as he had before correct on they all say therefore properly conclude at that point if you take in the result residual functional capacity for light work with limited public contact based on the c opinion page simply is in title treatment summary and he documents that he's treating mr burnham from march of ninety nine through october thirtieth two thousand and two which was the day before he filled out that form common sense would indicate that most likely he put down he seen on october thirtieth as part of the mental status evaluation he does not as the finance counsel indicated in his response to treatment of an excellent but as dr gordon describing what we can see  at some time in the late ninety's he was at the market level and now it's at moderate but just because you respond x and get treatment doesn't mean you've got all that or as dr chew on this page indicated that he had a global assessment functioning of forty five which is when looked in the  years before you make a decision isn't substantial evidence especially when it comes from a one time examining physician but the problem i'm having with your argument counselor is that the doctors are basically saying mr burnham does fine as long as he's clean and sober and he is clean and sober in two thousand and one in two thousand and two why isn't that substantial evidence to support the termination that he is no longer disabled he might have been disabled earlier when he was on drugs and alcohol but he's not now the reason for that my response to that your honor is looking at the hale jay's decision with two thousand to because the judge has to make a decision whether he was this able to ninety eight ninety nine two thousand and all the way up to the day of the decision aren't you overlooking that the medical expert testimony at the hearing with her later in two thousand and two when he made his decision i'll stand here and say i'll agree that as i said before in ninety eight ninety nine to two thousand the judge had enough to deny the case but as of two thousand two contemporary evidence sho based on the evidence i don't believe he was able you know ninety eight ninety nine two thousand two thousand one either should as we've talked about here before the duty to fully very well i just got this case back on remand i should send him out to get a more updated because own doctors see what they have to say first but he didn't do that all he wanted to do was say well i got nine hundred ninety eight here and i've got two thousand so this take those two guys two and a half four years ago today and say good bye to dr chu and dr morton and that's what i'm saying is not right but that's that's my point and that goes back to your frustration that you have to sit here and clean up the mess and my point is is you're going to keep on seeing me because until this court al and occasionally they might go to the field counsel this attorney that's on this record as well as many other attorneys as i'm sure since you've seen many of us from our firm here so their work to us to sort of help clean up the mess to clean up the mess is right and they're not sensitive to things right now we were in that sort of thing and will leave me while i enjoy coming to visit you all i'd much rather handle these cases at the hearing or some other lower level but unfortunately that's where i'm at again thank you for the england thing when it went back examination and a fresh opinion you've got nothing else to deny the case on that's my point is not whether or not he properly apply the test but what fees if he's awarded benefits the benefits  could if he wins will relieve get benefits clear back to the date of his original application for benefit under this application of the supplement your income yes the so we can't totally reject i mean the judge could find that he's only going to give them benefits starting in two thousand and one if that could be a result and to tell you honestly i've had judges on remand will tell me i got them or appeal a lot of the evidence i'm comfortable with january first two thousand and one based on dr drew's opinion and because got old stuff and i want to get it done and