applied i think and to two thousand and twelve he applied for what's called s s i which means supplemental security income which means that he has not much on work history the mr watson has very significant mental health issues physical health is ok so i think what this case is all about is the listing in listings i'm sure you know the listings are a statutory criteria which if you meet you are found disabled and you receive the benefits the listing involved here is twelve o four  and i believe it's conceived the primary issue is let's just take that listing whether or not the evolution if you will of the evidentiary record demonstrates that this individual had some very serious symptoms up to a particular point in time and then it appears that there is and there are a number of record sites set forth where it appears he then has significant improvement so the question is whether there's substantial evidence in support of the ail j s decision for that provision and that's something where if there are a number of record sites supporting the very improvement that the ail j found would appear to support the decision sufficiently for purposes of review i agree with everything you said i think the real problem in this case is the phrase substantial evidence i would suggest that that such a general phrase that it can be very misleading now you're saying it wasn't substantial but you know that's a very strict test well again i think i'm not saying it was substantial but there's substantial evidence both ways i think not that doesn't do it well see we can't stand in the shoes of the able track and make the decision that we think is right we have to determine even if we agreed with you we would have to we have to decide whether the there was substantial evidence for the l j to make that decision that's a that's a highly deferential standard the standard now that that we normally apply in these cases no i am suggesting that substantial or very substantial can be two different things in your in your papers on page sixteen you are not talking about the clear and convincing i think in terms of substantial evidence you're talking about that in terms of the ale js review of credibility determinations as i read your argument with regard to clear and convincing you're saying if the l j is going to discount the testimony of a particular witness here it's the it's mr watson and his mother then there has to be clear and convincing in a clear and convincing showing as to why the credibility should be discounted that's different from substantial evidence in the sense that it's really going to supporting a credibility determination am i right or saying that clear and convincing has to be for substantial evidence more generally no no you are correct but again i think that the the ale jury does comment on credibility certainly but i think  comments are so general that one has to one court of course to second guess them mental health issues are a lot more difficult in these cases than are physical issues in physical issues or somebody has a bad back there's usually medical evidence giving a percentage rate which which way does that cut it really means that we and the district judge are compelled to subtle harder to understand and less easy to establish by objective factors so that being the case that would seem to argue for more deference to what the a l j concludes is evidence that is self reporting by mr watson right he there's a number of citations in the record where he said he felt fine he was doing well otherwise  discussed wanting to go into computer work for his employment so itself reporting and that can be surely taken into consideration as well there was no assertion that that was incorrect that someone had written notes of things he hadn't short quote on page seventeen of my brief and this is from the decision already it's just a few lines the claimant and his mother describe i should point out by the way that it's i  don't only handle this type of case but i've handled number most of the years it's very seldom that there is available a somebody who can independently talk about the claimants issues it's pretty unusual in this case the mother who has a good job with the bank very articulate and with whom the claimant well with with her and her  stepfather the claimant has lived the l g a did not ignore her testimony l j expressly considered it called a heartfelt oh yes yes so it was taken into consideration and decision he did not indicate that she that the l j or that this court would have to conclude otherwise from the a decision so i just want to want to start by that the substantial evidence standard is the standard that governs really he was saying he was addressing testimony in the clear and convincing evidence review as applied to testimony and i scuse me you've said with respect to credibility but in fact i think his argument is even more specific than that it should apply to testimony itself because he references throughout the opponents and his mother's testimony and one thing that i would like to point out your honour's is that symptoms that testimony is certainly part of that but it's not the only statement that's considered as as your honor acknowledge there are other statements that are considered such as other statements representations in the record and that sort of thing and those  factors and in ultimately taking into consideration testimony his mother's testimony and other statements that the appellant made in the second circuit there is no i don't think that there's a case that requires the ael j to meet a particular standard named as something like clear and convincing in terms of assessing credibility it is a discretionary standard in terms of having taken into consideration all of the relevant evidence weighing it as so many things are weighed in terms of fact questions but not a particular standard such as the ninth circuit has adopted would you agree with that i would agree with that your honor the issue the only standard is the substantial evidence supporting the  analysis and i believe that this young man and again i think it's very significant that the the appellee the commissioner conceded the first listing twelve o four has two sets of criteria the so called a criteria and i think there are about ten of them those are conceded and those are significant problems for this young man and then the the so called b criteria therefore you have to meet two of them i think he may met three these are the effects of his his disability so that's where the that's where the substantial evidence  test i think has to be picked about a little bit thank you thank you both we'll reserve