pain interviewed an m r i which supported his opinion that she was having problems in june of two thousand and ten he valuated her and said that her overall work level was at sedentary but didn't mention the other findings in his report and didn't accept his opinion about her concentration problems even though as a treating physician his opinion about mental impairments is also entitled to deference so in addition when so the case was at the appeals counsel he completed another evaluation in which he clarified that in his opinion she had been unable to perform any type of work since july of two thousand and felt she was credible and complains because he had seen he the doctor he the objective findings that supported her complaints and felt that she would have missed would be absent three more days per month on a more probable than not basis if she were to evaluated carter twice and the second evaluation which was in december two thousand and nine she also she found she was limited to sedentary work but she also noted that she couldn't maintain competitive the levels in sitting standing and walking i mean there were a lot of problems going on that she thought would prevent her from performing competitive at a competitive level the  appear to be capable of working on a consistent basis were able to deal with the usual stress encountered in competitive work now l j rejected dr copeland's opinion because supposedly he relied too much on her  subjective findings her complaint subjective complaints but what's interesting about that is in the report that he completed for social security social security hired him to do this evaluation the instructions for how he's supposed to do that evaluation include that he's supposed to ask her about her complaints and list all of her complaints see if you get ignored though as it hadn't mentioned them his report would have been deficient perhaps it would have even been rejected also counsel isn't it also true that one hand and a l j permissibly discounts extent of pain testimony the a l j also can by the same of a obvious count the history given to medical providers that says the same thing if someone is exaggerating in one context then it doesn't help support the context so isn't isn't that fair game well that's correct picks up in this case it's not fair game because the l g didn't state any convincing reason for rejecting any of carter's testimony but i know it sounded good from your argument like you were suggesting that the whole exercise was improper but it sounds now like much you're saying is just in this instance in your view that of the reasons were not sufficient is that your argument well the l g is reason is not correct because for one thing an l j cannot reject an examining physicians opinion simply because the can the examining physician consider the subjective complaints of the claim it they can reject but that's not what happened i think it was more saying the next probably excepting an exaggerated list of symptoms the opinion primarily on subjective complaints documented if there had been no doubt well documented objective clinical findings in his report if his report included nothing but subjective complaints then what you're saying is exactly correct findings so not on her description of her symptoms and once again i i don't think that the empty stage any is not a single convincing reason for rejecting her symptoms i wasn't  non public setting dr robinson did not review any records after the date that he filled out the check box form that he filled out he never met her he's a non examining physician and his opinion was inconsistent with the opinions of jeannette rivera who is a psychiatric nurse who evaluated carter his opinion was inconsistent with dr copeland's opinion and as a general rule the opinions of people who actually examined an individual are entitled to greater weight now the a l j is the one who has to weigh the evidence and to determine why am i i mean arguably there are lingering and exaggeration of her symptoms are we talking about the one that was in two thousand and five well i mean i have a couple of notes here that says kara member which doctor was but   i'll address that in my little i think is more appropriate in trying the the issue here is that mr carter his condition has gotten worse over time she was injured on the job she one of the reasons that she was found to be not credible was because supposedly she was hanging out at wal mart with her friends that was in two thousand and five she applied for benefits how are her daily activities a she reported them consistent with any finding that she had a debilitating mental health issue her meds her for her activities at the time from the time that she applied for benefits here were basically staying home all the time in their day she didn't even get out of bed so well that's not entirely fair she's writing a book she's looking for a publisher she's you know seeing her boyfriend  d seemed like she was pretty busy that's a fair that's a fair question let me answer it she was in special education her entire education she yes she's writing sonnets and children's books however she took it took her twenty nine tries to pass the driving test the written and driving test this woman is not she has a serious learning disability and you know the fact that one of her hobbies is really writing things down this is not this is not realistic ok and there's no evidence that she's able to actually write something that is marketable said two things one is that it rely on the claim of subjective complaints but the other was that the opinion was not consistent with a claimant's testimony about her all level of activities in the world which is a quite a different statement than just saying relied on the subject of complaints and thank you i guess i'd like you to comment on that aspect of it whether that's an appropriate reason to give less weight to an opinion to say well the testimony we've heard is not consistent with the union that is an appropriate well here's an example she told dr copeland that she had to quit her job at wal mart because she couldn't deal with the people and because of fear and anxiety she testified that she quit that job because she couldn't do the exertion job as a cashier at wal mart were public and so that's part of the basis of dr copeland's opinion is based on her statements that about her social abilities when she has made different and then there is dr house report and she also is an examining psychologist and she also found no more than moderate cognitive and social limitations looks like they agreed at step to miss carter suffered from the severe impairments of anxiety personality disorder with borderline antisocial traits and depression and i just if you could tell me how that finding was incorporated in the residual functional capacity determine and the hypothetical post well ok tional expert the limitation to nonpublic work  accounts for the anxiety and the limitation to simple repetitive tasks accounts for other much moderate mental functional limitations found by these exam examining sources such as dr lewis and dr house and also miss mcevoy why don't you say the not the repetitive and the other thing was sufficient to incorporate anxiety personality report he simply giving us his view of what the same documents we're looking at say right dr robinson yes so i don't understand why why you've been anywhere at all rather than reading a document yourself translate these what are checkbox assessments of moderate functional limitations because the question becomes what do those mean and how do they get translated into an r anyway well i think the overall principle is that it's a psychologist who is an expert and the j is not the not the psychiatric medicine expert and so opinion to my knowledge required g i f scores to be evaluated they are on the on the way out not included in the latest version of the d s five due to subject later but that was his first examination of the claimant you know and then he's he saw the claimant three or four times after about an a in a three or four year period for medication management and his notes reflect that the claimant was doing doing pretty well subsequently when she didn't gaging treatment he did have a note in september two thousand and eight that said that the claimant had failed at that time dropped out of contradictory medical unions on both sides and under the tone of pending case there's a combination of treating examining and on examining of opinions and those are not only substantial evidence for the r f c assessment let me start by answering your question about the lingering reference that was in jeannette movie is report from march two thousand and eight she never pays an arrant p who saw years we can tell she never treated but she did examine carter once she's not qualified to make a diagnosis that's why the ail j nobody could refer could rely on a diagnosis she is not kaufman or so security regulations to diagnose anything the other thing that reliance on activities my opposing counsel discussed dr lewis which is from june of two thousand and seven and dr how which is from october two thousand and three in october two thousand and five carders activities in october in two thousand and three two thousand and five and two thousand and seven are not good convincing reason to reject her testimony about her activities since july of two thousand and eight clinical findings that of her her half back being depressed and how dysfunctional she was concentration problems but can also didn't didn't he the l j found that to be a severe impairment and that's why i'm asking you that question because i don't see dr satires report as really saying anything about specific work limitations that would be inconsistent with r f c i agree with you the issue though is that his clinical findings are consistent with dr copeland's findings and dr copeland did state a clear opinion which was improperly rejected in constricted i'm not saying that this is a lot of evidence i'm saying this evidence is on the whole consistent with dr copeland's opinion but most significantly this also is from prior to july two thousand and eight this gives us the historical perspective but from july two thousand and eight on dr copeland's is the most significant evidence here and l j did not state any even any legitimate reason for rejecting all especially because the