good morning your honour's a minute please the court my name is andrew conic appearing for palin calvin johnson my main focus today is going to be on what i perceive to be the most flawed portion of the decision and that's the fifth step analysis of the vocational issues in this case  as we all know at the fist the burden does shift to the commissioner to show if there are other jobs a person can do with the impairments found by the a l j the a l j found had a physical  mr johnson was restricted to light work which is an assessment we do not dispute here so we're at the physical side at light work the main point of emphasis i want to make though in this case is this case is essentially a claim for disability based on mental impairment and in questioning the vocational expert at the hearing hypothetical relied upon by the unskilled work without frequent interactions with the public or fellow employees that it now my client has had from his treating psychiatry dr paris treatment for anxiety and major depression from one thousand nine hundred two on this case was filed based on a mental impairment there is clearly substantial evidence in the record that with support a finding that there was much more is after the date last insurer but i would say if it ordered and it is an expert opinion it should not just be to summarily disregarded because it happens to be after they last insert assessing a psychiatric condition  dr harrington and within that report there was some reference made to his conditions had improved greatly you know and the findings were and were minimal by dr harrington the consult parish which is not good from you know i would have loved him to go monthly but it's at the same time it's part of the nature of us mental illness that perhaps you're not making the best and dr parrish has issued later reports from ninety seven saying he believes he had been consistently disabled back in one thousand nine hundred even though there was a gap in treatment you know that the commissioner would argue that well he was yes harrington did not minister standardize psychological testing it was the nature of a psychological assessment is is you know talking to the person in a consultative exam for however many minutes the only doctor to cite to objective medical testing is dr parrish that says there was an m and p i'd done that i was not counsel at the hearing level but that did not get cement into the record for some reason the doctor parrish did have an analysis of the that did support the major depression diagnosis that's the only objective test ever referenced throughout this record otherwise it's it's literally talking to the patient and i'd say a consulta has not provided any objective evidence supports his assessment so we discount says and then goes to dr harrington and i looked in both of them and i didn't says i saw a mental status exam sections but i didn't see any not in the record the only reference from any psychiatric expert to an objective test is from dr parrish who concludes we have to trust him because we can't look at it independently that it does support the diagnosis of major depression and a moderate impairment with me it was maintaining social functioning and with deficiencies in a concentration persistence and pay the again the one mental impairment included in the hypothetical did deal with you know no frequent interaction with the public which could be subsumed under the social functioning but it has nothing to do with persistence pace and those types of deficiencies in maintaining work throughout the eight hour workday so even if we're adopting they'll say findings he had in an inadequate vocational expert question he and or those three ruling ninety six eight p it's very clear that those broad categories social functioning deficiencies of persistence and pay six set expects are brad broad categories to be considered as a step too if it's severe or an step three if there's a meeting of a listing once we get to specify those broad categories have to have more specific limitations they're under posed in a vocation in a vocational expert hypothetical question there was absolutely nothing that could be construed as you know relating to moderate deficiencies in persistence and pa medications at that time so he was having some problems definitely but you know i think the fact that he took a gun to work at doesn't necessarily show that he was disabled and perhaps dangerous  part of his problem is that he's paranoid yes but addressing dr parrish i'd like to emphasize that there were significant gaps in treatment with him between ninety two and ninety five the claimant didn't seek any treatment well presumably that's part of the disease sometimes yes i understand that but in july ninety four when he was examined by dr harrington he reported dr harrington that the reason he wasn't undergoing psychiatric of doing so what do we make of that he tried to adjust to i'm sorry he said that he had tried to work and to just to work and he found he couldn't do it this was hard to t example records from the kind of stress management program indicate that he experienced a significant improvement in the symptoms and he reported that his stress level was very low and that's a transcript site one ninety eight  addition and the claims testified at the hearing that he returned to work full time and july two thousand and this contradicts dr parrish nov ninety eight opinion that he thought the claimant would not be able to return to work for another three years in fact he went back to work and about a year and half after that opinion so that was another contradiction of dr person's opinion that the l t didn't include his moderate finding of the deficiencies in concentration persistence or pace the l c fully considered these moderate limitations and found that the claimants impairment was severe however then he subsumed these moderate limitations into his residual function of the past city and found that the moderate limitations didn't prevent him from performing unskilled work i'd like to also point out that people cation expert actually provided a definition of moderate at the hearing from performing complex work it would not prevent him from performing simple unskilled work concluded that the claimant could perform simple repetitive tasks with respect to the alleged conflict between the vocation experts testimony and the dictionary of occupational  given however even if you was eliminate this job there were still two jobs remaining that existed in significant numbers in the local and national economy the claimant contends that there's another conflict between his education required factory job performance the commission does not about education using the criteria contained in the o t rather the commissioner about with education in terms of literacy and you as a formal education generally a unskilled work there simply was no conflict and i like to point out that the regulations define unskilled work as work which requires little to no judgement to do simple duties that can be learned on a job property preparation time of two which means that the jobs can be learnt learned by short demonstration up to and including thirty days i believe the score held in terry versus sullivan the jobs with a specific vocational preparation time of two corresponds with the social security's definition of unskilled work accordingly there simply was no conflict between a vocation expert testimony and the