the court my name is john sidelights from great falls montana it is my pleasure to represent before this court ryan j price claimant for social security disability purposes i would reserve two minutes of possible brian price applied for disability benefits in two thousand and thirteen there was a hearing before the administrative law judge in two thousand and fifteen and a decision and twenty fifteen ryan is an individual who suffers from mental limitations he has schizophrenia it's uncontested all the doctors have described it there's a new word i can't keep up with the sams i can't even keep up with what number the latest one is but it's gets so as well as the issues dealing with mania and depression the ail j finds that he has schizo affective disorder and so i don't know if that means he has delusions and hallucinations according to our findings because she will then go through later and say i don't believe that he's hearing voices no schizophrenia i think is a list  disorder correct so he had schizophrenia you when well and and in but accurately does not have a list of disorder he well i think he meets that listing but he has some of the doctor that's not some of the doctors say they're not observing in him what appeared to be responses to internal stimuli which is another way of saying i'm not sure  and and and i if that were a medical decision that that is required for schizo affective disorder i wouldn't be here because it's a waste of my clients money to come out here but what happens is there's one reference where a doctor says he does not appear to be responding to internal stimuli which is the guy i talk about you know what do you think the error made by the there is two parts one in saying i don't think he has auditory hallucinations he just doesn't have those and because he doesn't have those then all of the limits that the medical expert at the hearing gave him all of the limits in terms of work were not incorporated to the vocational consultant there was a medical expert this a l j admits she doesn't use medical experts dr mani kuka and dr co that he in fact has elucidations he has these audio he makes that statement that he believes he has them and then he limits ryann in terms of work the judge said whatever is limits and kuka says he can't work with the public but just that's one second he's got to be in a relatively isolated environment and third don't give him a lot of  distractions or activity now that's the limit that the medical expert at the hearing gives because of these that what he admits are hallucinations that are current the judge and it may be a function of just not using medical experts at the hearing when she gives the hypothetical to the vocational consultant in terms of ok here's this gentleman's limits tell me what jobs are available she says  keep them out of the public in a low stress environment stop now out of the public in a low stress environment is not the same as isolated isolated you've got to be isolated from coworkers not just the public he needs to be isolated second in terms of distractions and activities in terms of being low stress and i pointed out in the brief and i'm upset some of the work that they did on for the papers to get to the court so i'm going to pick on staples but at staples there's a little corner over there where people make copies i mean there's a staple employees make copies and you bring your stack and then you hand it to him and they go make copies in five minutes you can make those copies you can be the employee of the month after five minutes training it's low stress here's a stack of papers how many copies do i make it's not isolated it doesn't avoid distractions the problems that ryan price is going to have in that what the judges describe as is the job low stress is the fact that even though he  doesn't tot the public they're walking by they come in there's an announcement overhead we need a price check which people checking out at the counter next to him coming into the store or leaving the store so low stress does not equate with what and you're saying well low stress you're interpreting that to mean that he needs to be isolated or that doesn't include isolation that is absolutely what i'm saying in terms of and  of the time when you have a medical expert and the judge says what are their problems in the medical expert will give those those limits are dictated i'm not a bookcase no consultant i don't understand any of it all i've got to do is say the medical person said here are the limits i turn to the vocational person and say under these limits what can this person do the sort of left out here you ask the start of the vocational discussion here came from the question about well what was the air what is the judge done wrong in terms of the delusions the auditory hallucinations well what's happening is when you decide when the judge decides he doesn't have those when you decide he doesn't have those then you don't need to keep him away from distractions and activities because people suffering from schizo affective disorder don't need a lot of activity and they don't need to be bombarded and get  these activities going in their head in the voices the second thing is when they are dealing with that when somebody is yelling in my head while i'm talking to you here that's distracting and so somebody with this disorder has a very difficult time concentrating on a question and forming an answer and getting it back because there's this person in there telling me something whatever it is player or maybe it's just a noise but it's very distracting and so when the judge said i'm not going to believe that there were hallucinations these auditory hallucinations which are based upon well there is no internal stimuli there's nobody that tells us i should respond and be talking to this person who's talking to me and if i don't do that i'm not have i'm not have hearing these voices and that's essentially what she did dr koop at the hearing did not say you needed to respond internal stimuli the judge didn't ask him isn't that a weakness in his case here you  good morning your honour's michael howard for the commissioner your honour's price claims to hear voices that he cannot ignore and he says that he was fired from working at home depot because the voices told him to watch you tube instead of working the algae did not need to believe these extreme claims but then could instead discuss the varying comments from treating examining and not examining doctors who all question the degree of his schizo affective disorder there are two main issues in this case the plaine testimony and the testifying medical expert dr who which prices attorneys are talking about today i wanted to talk about the comments at the hearing today from from price i think there  claim that the l g said that there were no hallucinations and that's simply not what the l g found it's not the algaes duty to spell out exactly how many who's the nation's the person would have over time the days and said concerned with what the person can do  work and for that question the actually called testifying medical experts psychologist and it's very clear from the decision believe it's a page twenty eight of the record the gave dr koop is testimony great could explain essentially that price would hear some voices that they were kind of a cheater chatter that did not tell him or command him to do things and this really goes to the heart of this case which is that that opinion and many of the other records from treating examine sources undermine what price told the l j which is that he heard so essentially commands that would tell him to do things that he could not ignore so  his opinion great great weight and then the l j i translated those opinions into the residual functional bassy you know if i put aside all of the sort of the technical talk which we have to do i realize that and i look at this man's record and i put myself in the position of an employer with a job that will have it all pretty much off to one side and so on he's a terrible employee and i'm going to fire him within about a month your honor i do acknowledge that there's there's mixed evidence in this case and this is someone who maybe is closer to the standard for disability but the standard is very strict under the social security act and we're looking at you know can a person with these various limitations do any work available in the national economy as long as those numbers are significant that's that's the statutory regulatory scheme that we're operating under and he did and we have the medical experts saying he did not meet or equal of the listing at step three so if that does not appear to be an issue in this case it who price's arguing that the l g somehow overlooked what the doctor said at the hearing and do not account for those findings but the district court explain this issue pretty clearly a page eleven of the record and then the doctor who can also use a broader term saying a relatively isolated work environment and then it was for the l j we would argue to translate that comment what does that mean in terms of specific limitations on what someone can do because again the l g is charged with form formulating this finding about the ability to work that's about specifically what can this person do in the workplace so the able to translate that general phrase about relatively isolated environment and said and translated it into again no public contact no tandem work and then some other limitations on social functioning and was there anything in dr drew this testimony that w but when we actually read the testimony at page six hundred thirty five i believe it was on the record the doctor's quite clear he does not need a listing it's at step three we also have a partial credibility finding with respect to price is that how you would characterize how they treated his testimony as to his limitations and what was happening yes yes your honor sensually this there was there were several observations from treating and examining sources saying that price exaggerated or did not seem to have the symptoms you had but this is the ultimate discuss those records right rightfully so but no point said that this person was completely feigning any ill will and illness or something right that's right so this case is really about the extent of the symptoms and exactly what do they do on his for his ability to work and yes the evidence does vary somewhat over time but the older did call that medical expert to help make that decision so counseled if i can ask the question do we have any ninth circuit specific specific precedent for supreme court precedent that says how closely which starts on this issue in a related way in the social security context but not this precise issue because these are kind of facts specific we don't have that precise issue thanks if i may pick up with your question about the vocational consultant my initial brief under the section on the vocational expert specifically notes this court's findings all the way back to one thousand nine hundred four it's not new law in order for a vocational experts testimony to have any value the hypothetical must set forth all of a plaintiff's impairments specifically including pain the opinion of the expert cannot be relied upon if the hypothetical is not supported in the record and does not reflect the limitations and so what we have here is not nic picking this is the difference and it's the reason the specifics are given to the vocational consultant so that the lawyers and the judge as a lawyer don't have to make vocational decisions we just give them the element and say this is a practical question in your experience in these cases is the vocational expert typically in the room to hear some of the testimony that then is translated into the instruction to the motivational expert in montana at least where i practice in great falls the judges are in billings we do everything by video and vocational usually out of both them and they're there by telephone not by video but they listen to the whole hearing they have and they will get on and testify have looked the medical records you've sent me the file and they do that before the hearing and then turn around and and testimony i would finish with this his testimony set forth in my reply brief at page three he says quote i think it's clear the claimant often has difficulties with his paranoid ideas and this tractability due to voices particularly when he's not adequately treated he goes on saying he should not be working with the public and working in a relatively isolated environment that does not have a lot of activities and instruction and distractions