thing a residual function of the path the finding on them your physician the didn't review the complete file and is then consistent with the record the the treatment record that they didn't even have an opportunity to see which is you know judge must articulate a reason for rejecting certain opinions then the judge just glossed over the fact that they didn't the doctors found one or two episodes  then on top of that reject dr frederick samarian and the therapist records all three of them gave the union that the port of the finding of disability so the basically the judge rejected judge absolutely i did not undertake any such analysis just kind of there merrily and vaguely rejected doctor the therapist maimane records and similarly gave you no inaccurate reason for rejecting the two treating doctors so we have three treating three korean forces fredricka a fourteen months and then a year after vest marion both independently assessing them they're in different facilities giving rather measure not over the top at all he knew out of twenty areas of functioning both dr frederick into marion only said five out of the twenty were the most of their limitations the rest were varying lester's agreed the judge interpreted that as being overly sympathetic it was a vent these are all very you know if he did not have limitations in certain areas and both of these doctors independently acknowledged that in fifteen out of twenty except the five that were severe the vocational expert documented testimony those are disabled in the job selectively reviewed the records and said look she's not you know she does not have x y and z limitations here that is not the point the point of medical records  years before you know couple years before getting regular treatment my client was having substance abuse issues being hospitalized so from that baseline to getting regular treatment yes she would indicate any ability to sustain forty hour work week she was think the gorge or the activity referring to it she was a member of narcotics anonymous which with part of her treatment to her credit she was very involved in narcotics anonymous and actually served on the board of for that but that is intermittent it does not in all it is not the ability to think yes he has proven that those medical source and show improvement fifteen out of the twenty areas of category are not this they are according to the vocational expert testimony she does not need to be incapacitated she needs to be precluded from saying forty hour work w ith all three treating sources have documented and they're very well aware of that improvement from the baseline of going to hospitalization now and i'm sorry i've gone over i don't have my two minutes i don't know if i'll fill  some difficulties primarily with methamphetamine that landed her in in in jail and in treatment and in march of two thousand and fourteen when she was incarcerated for the last time she purred three month period she decided she was going to change her life then and get clean and sober in the evidence after her incarceration from march through june of two thousand and fourteen shows that she was doing relatively well and was  functional and was engaged in a numerous activities and maintained on medication and the evidence shows that she did this not wish to work she's not interested in finding a job  throughout she represented that she doesn't want to work she's not interested employment her parents are paying around one point she said her life this is pretty easy she doesn't really know what she wants to do other than pursue her hobby the evidence to show that this is an individual who's unable to work it shows that this is an individual but once she became sober and abstained from methamphetamine use simply chose not to opposing counsel particularly the arguments he's making about the open use of the treating doctors in the preparation of the r f c certainly well ok found that plaintiff what's more limited than either of those doctors applying the the ale chair create with their findings that the individual could perform simple repetitive to work good reasons for rejecting those opinions primarily they were not supported by ject of finding l j discussed medical records at least and then in discussing the way to give those those opinions explained that they were not that he considered the opinions of dr cherian and dr frederick were treating physicians but he noted that treating physician waits opinions are entitled to significant weight only if they're supported by objective medical evidence and that is not the case here that's what the regulations require consideration of the extent to which the opinions are supported and explained and consistent with the record as a whole and in this case the opinions that claimant wishes to claim should have been credited were simply checklist checked the box opinions that didn't include narrative or supporting explanations so the fact that they're not supported by evidence of record is a propre a reason for discounting those opinions greater weight basically there's no supportive evidence and if you look at it and if you look at the opinions they don't include any narrative explanation oard there she was fully disabled how do you get to them you're out of there was that more than a full year gap between the date of the ale chase decision in this in the nd hearing specifically said that that greater limitations were based on evidence received at the hearing that shows greater limitation in the ale chain and the subsequent hearing specifically noted that inference we should draw with respect to the case that's in front of us no your honor because of the year gap you can certainly consider the subsequent determination but i think if you look at the guidance then and through taunts to sixty eight after twenty four you'll see that the new the new opinion is based on new medical evidence a different time period and it does provide a aggressive course of treatment absent more is not a legitimate reason to discount the physicians the subsequent medical opinion the problem with mental health cases it's always a you're always able to pick and choose considering the entire length of treatment is relevant it's not someone does not wake up and is a danger through self or others and need an involuntary this is part of the spectrum of waxing and waning of symptoms of mental eight hours of video games not that is not evidence of her functioning it's an evidence of her maladaptive coping she tried to stay away from reality they met your controlled environment that's the only way he can function so more records say things like she is happy with her life the way it is he does not want to because if he jumps off that cliff he knows the deterioration will happen this needs to be all