may have please the court my name is greg wallace and i represent randy rinehart in this social security disability appeal mr rinehart is a twenty six year old man who suffers from an intellectual disorder or disability something we used to call middle retardation he's been in special education classes throughout his career and school he's never held a job for more than one day now the main issue in the case is whether substantial evidence supports the finding that reinhart does not meet the requirements of listing twelve o five b for intellectual disability now we have  raised another issue that that really flows from this particular issue which i'm going to focus on today and that is that the ale j s r f c assessment even if he doesn't  listening twelve o five the the o'jays r f c assessment did not properly include the limitations of mr right heart social functioning and concentration persistence or pace you know the there's under listing twelve o five b there are three requirements you have to have an i q of seventy or below you have to if significant deficits in adaptive functioning in four specified areas and the disorder has to  to age twenty two of the algae conceded the first of those requirements the most recent i q score which was in two thousand and thirteen showed that mr right heart has a full scale i q of sixty five all of the ail j never reached the third requirement the listening is the evidence is plain that his disorder began before age twenty two in fact this i q test was was given when he was at age twenty one he was in special education classes medical evidence he's been assessed suffering from for middle retardation prior on several occasions prior to age twenty two can i ask you a preliminary question yes if if i understand the are you on the listing and i want to i want to let you get back to a second but preliminarily if we if we think that there was no disability because there is substantial evidence not using the lessening but just generally that the claim under backwell and some of the do we have to go back and look at whether or not the l j erd and more simply whether substantial evidence supports the listing determination made in other words have any sort of adopted a harmless error analysis that if  it doesn't meet the disability and states five or six then we're not to the less thing no because the supreme court pointed out has pointed out that the listing is is separate it is separate from the consideration of what the individual residual functional capacity is and whether given that residual functional capacity a person could actually perform work that exists in significant numbers within the economy so the listing the step three listing you're sort of self contained your respective of what the engine result might be for example you could say well the person doesn't need meets the listing requirements but it's possible that the able jury could could find and only apply when when the a l j doesn't do the list again alice s because i think that that's like an bagwell which is a recent decision we basically said well the l g didn't do the listing analysis but you know why i didn't find it there is a disability at all and it's pretty clear think it was more it was down the line in the in the five step sequential analysis if i recall correctly so the four areas that there needs to be a marked limitation in at least two of those four areas or an extreme limitation and one this is the area of the dappy functioning which is the second requirement in twelve o five b the poor areas are understanding remembering it applying information the l j f that that mr reinhart has serious limitations in interacting with others and in concentration his ability to concentrate persist maintain pace in a work like set and i don't know what kind of mental health professional opinions good would be that probative of the question of social interaction goes down he has a lot of fun w what is a mental health professional what add to that how weird it where did the jay hair is the way he or she approached obviously if you claim psychologist evaluate did mr right heart on three separate occasions two thousand and seven two thousand and thirteen two thousand and sixteen and every single time he found that mr right hard has deficits in his thousand and sixteen says he presents it all in a childlike manner so if you have somebody who is twenty one to twenty one year old man or twenty four year old man in those on those occasions who is described as there that seems to be a serious limitation in social functioning here and that would be were that's not the standard your honor the question is whether he has a serious well there's a serious limitation in social functioning is the standard here and it and if he has that serious limitation then he will meet listing twelve o five b because  evidence of the time they were were considering it said that he can only work at jobs where interpersonal contact is incidental to the work performed the o j said arima except that and so yes i don't think the o friends with the arm of the not overstay hometown interaction with a daily basis that happen occasionally are almost never there's nothing in the record as to the frequency or even the nature of the relationship he said that that his mother was friends with the firefighters and he made friends with them and he helped them out in a halloween and in a halloween house it hail j said it was every year there is no evidence in the record that it was every year so i think the l j assume too much look at this this is a good hearted fireman taking care filling some interest in a minimally retarded young man and and i don't think that it is substantial evidence that he does not have serious limitations in his social functioning especially in light of all of the professional assessments done by dr jones on three separate occasions he was in anger management and when he was in at sixty eight because of his inability to control his anger toward others dr jones said at that time his anger and occasional aggressiveness prevent him from being able to make many substantial friendships that was age sixty the in two thousand and sixteen dr jones said socially he has minimal interaction with others and displays a limited ability to read social cues in an age appropriate manner he would likely be taken advantage of easily by others and he has poor social discretion of these or are  narrow and mainly because i have done several cases in twelve five c but now it's twelve o five b they just changed it in two thousand and seventeen so we have not litigated their won well under twelve  there is not substantial evidence to support that jay's opinion on this particular point yes exactly and your view would run counter to the objective evidence from the doctors and everybody else that this person as mark court would rule in this case is that the l j's determination that mr right heart does not have a mark limitation in social functioning or in the concentration persistence of pace is not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole given the evidence from the psychological evaluators here given the evidence of his daily activities given the l chase reliance on very thin evidence to the contrary thank you thank you prior cases but i don't recall that it was as determinative to the listing question as it seems to be here where where he's got he's got the first he's got the i q criteria right and he's got the question right now with mental disabilities that you raised earlier the point in the how do you object if we establish things like limitations and social functioning and they're just required to consider the entire record not just objective evidence and this particular case mr roberts trying to establish that he has mark limitations and social functioning and he's relying on the opinion of mr jo functioning he seemed to be merely relying on was mr rinehart's subject of state on subject of statements so in other words without a more consistent treatment relationship dr jones didn't actually get the opportunity to observe the social impairment that was being being brought up and then the the district order that she be l j didn't do the analysis correctly and we said well but there is no will to make disability so there is no harm no foul he considered mr roberts hearing testimony he did consider the evidence that was even prior to the rather than any clued in the cycle the psychological evaluation of a school psychologist when he was but he was eleven years old at the time employee that took the application notice he was pleasant cooperative and he was he readily supplied the requested information to support his his application so in other words they would actually consider the record as a whole as i stated i ncluding mr r s own testimony and ultimately determine that he had only my limitations and social functioning i also like to go back to his testimony the test and the hearing lasted approximately approximately thirty minutes and he did not appear to have any difficulty answering dale j's questions you know that was my impression or of the transcript no wonder mr wallace addressed  with social function you can't prove it objectively but it has to be observed over a period of time and like we already stated there's no evidence in this case as there is no treatment records does only three causative examinations two of which was prior to the rather period and even the one can concentrate of examination that was from the relevant period does not give any indication that he has marks limitations and social functioning what about the ongoing supervision the fact that he loses concentration easily and kind of wanders thirty he did have a substantial amount of don't really know why he didn't last long at that particular job in this case even if we get past the step three finding and we agreed that the illogic correctly did the analysis of the o j venture went on a step in determined that based on  ended in defining his abilities and limitations it doesn't really capture how close he came to the call five the listing line drawn other words doesn't it doesn't really suggest that in the in the irish the definition if he actually did a definition does not describe act fairly describe how close he came to the list it doesn't that casts some doubt of the ease of opinion they usually hail j will will if not lead to the ve have already read in the record one that the testifies the a l j is finding residual function capacity right and then gets distracted in five minutes if that was in fact what the records show what i think that's what the c r f c c barrett his is his limitations j sometimes it's exactly that precise and see that's the problem i'm having the same problem as judge logan if that if the if he says he's got a moderate limitation that needs to show up in the residual functional capacity and it doesn't that passage he read it doesn't show up so off if the ve is not told that he has a moderate limitation on concentration but as told something different right then we've got a problem again in this case he found that there's b p of one which is like the lowest score you can get and so both of these jobs are unskilled jobs which society matches this v p of one so in this case although he didn't give him every specific detail in terms of in other words there was a doesn't really have to include every little nuance to what is specific limitations are but that's pretty important if you can't shovel rocks right and it looks like garbage collector look i don't i don't know what garbage collectors eggs what the requirements exactly are but if he's wandering off to go look you know look at a pretty tree or something like that and that's a big problem and if he if if the if the occasional experts are told that it casts some doubt on whether the vocational expert had all the information before him or her well in this case might or limitations accommodate that but if if the claimant had that