and based on that remaining he was also found to be eligible for individual on employability he also has a number of other impairments primarily mental impairments now the main issue here there's a couple of  them and i'm not sure which one you're going to want me to discuss so i'll just address them and please feel free to interrupt at any time and i'm sure you will this is the issue of he was sent to social security sent him to be evaluated by a psychologist d thompson and dr thompson broader detailed evaluation and basically opined that he had a number of limitations that reasonably would prevent him from working the l j rejected her opinion and as he did not state any legitimate reason and i cover all the reasons that she did state in my brief that's one issue the other main issue i think it involves his testimony and a mistake by the l j i now realize was not entirely her fault but still she should have asked about this and it's the issue of her rejecting his testimony in part because even though he has p d from being in the military and talked about how he had been affected by combat his d d to fourteen i believe it's called wasn't he wasn't in the record it was missing and there was nothing in the record that clearly identified that he'd been overseas so rather than asking him what's the deal she just rejected his testimony well his hearing attorney requested this this document and sure enough it shows that he was stationed in panama during the war very brief but the war that was in panama and so that completely undermines the l j's one of his comment rejecting his testimony to support based on the fact that you know he claims to have all these problems but the record doesn't show that he was overseas and he should have remained but they did not pardon me where did they say that she was rejecting his testimony that reason for that reason you know it's not so it's not that she comes out and clearly states i'm rejecting everything he says because here he is saying that he's got this disability that's based on the effects of of of combat and yet  fourteen shows no foreign military service so frankly if that were true if there really were no evidence and no producible evidence that confirmed that he actually had been somewhere and done something that would actually be a reasonable basis for the speech of the symptoms he was describing i think that's a great reason to rid completely reject his testimony either reason wasn't the reason part of me and my  reason but it wasn't any reason that was given ok well i guess i viewed it that she was actually that a team to her entire analysis of of his reasons now i also address in my brief the of the other reasons that he that she gave for rejecting his testimony none of those withstand scrutiny either because he's and i run through them each and every one of them i don't know you have any others that you have  particular question about well i have a question on one point and that is if we were to end up agreeing with you and feeling that there was some mistake of process by the way and that the case needs more review could you give me your sense of the pros and cons of whether we should just remand the case or whether we should as i think your brief said the ward benefits well the the evidence from dr thompson supports a finding of still come to the opposite conclusion on the record well i guess that's the call is that if you accept what she said what dr thompson said is true what her opinion says is true and it can only lead to a finding  disability then you might as well ward benefits based on that evidence if you believe it it doesn't isn't clear enough that it supports that then it would be more appropriate to remain at it and have a have another look at this the reasons for example tom's thompson one of the reasons was that she was a one time examiner but examining physicians are always a one time examiner he was looking terrible i mean he she reported all these he was when she saw him he he looked dreadful he was staring at the ground he was his to behavior so she recorded a lot of when the a l j said well no one else noticed her the other medical people said that so i could tell he was saying she's lying or he was lingering or exactly why well dr thompson's not oh she's not she's not like she just got out a psychologist school she's been doing she's been evaluating people for social security this was at the request of social security for as near as i can tell well over ten years and probably longer and he is his behavior and his symptoms that she was able to observe on the whole it's consistent with the findings of the v a regarding why it is that they found that his p t s d was disabling and and they also there's also the issue which she doesn't really address dr thompson doesn't address it comes out in  more in the v a records about his o c d and how that would also impact his ability to work so i can't i think that's what it comes down to is if you if you their opinion as having been improperly rejected and if you accept her opinion if it supports a finding if you can only support a funny disability you should grant benefits if you believe that that is not clear enough then obviously the other option is to remain for a new hearing counsel yes i want you to be able to fully answered judge present questions if she still has a concern here are for from the government griffith may please the court my name is heather griffith here representing the commissioner mr schiff you know as it is he's disabled and he bases his disability application on his own statements which were inconsistent so touched on his military service earlier and he alleged he served in just cause operation just cause in panama to dr thompson he had his d d to fourteen shows no foreign service and shows that he did not serve in the military during the years that operation just cause but her child previously about there being another document the record that shows otherwise is not true there is another document the record that was submitted after the decision that shows one month of foreign service but he also made in connecticut so i don't understand why why is that inconsistent he had to be there for more than a month the years the months during the period that he said you're saying that he wasn't the other documents show he wasn't in the military during your own time period but apparently this document shows you watch it shows he would it shows one month of foreign service are adding up your arse i think hires are not during the years of operation just cause and he told dr thompson he served in operation just cause again it's all about the inconsistent statements he told the agency he served in the military intel two thousand and thirteen and his duty to fourteen shows he was honorably discharged in ninety eight so he's making inconsistent statements he told his psychiatry starter johnson he had a history of serial jobs but he worked for lowe's for about eight years prior to his onset of disability he was able to maintain a job for that long and he testified he had problems with sleep and he would be only be able to sleep for an hour or two before having to get up to the hyper vigilance and other symptoms but he told his treating psychiatrist dr johnson but he used medication occasionally and he had good results for sleeping he was sleeping more deeply and more hours sometimes and other times but he did not report fatigue to his physical doctor treating doctors so he's making statements to just his statements don't all line up and that just goes to the heart of whether he's a reliable historian or not he get he had very minimal and conservative treatment he only saw dr johnson his treating psychiatrist five times in two thousand and fifteen and once in tw and at his last appointment he told the doctor that his symptoms especially for o c d did not cause any big life issues and that he wanted no further treatment at this time these inconsistency is undermine his statements there's further inconsistency as relating to his activities he reported that he had difficulty going out he did not like to be with people he didn't know that he isolated in his house  volunteered in his wife's rd grade classroom he volunteered for about two months as a community service officer with the police department he chose to do activities that involved interacting with other people he took a seven day trip to disneyland and his psychiatry's commended him on how well he handled the stress of the trip and that he did a nice job identifying when he needed more space these statements show that he is not a reliable the activities don't have to translate into showing that he holds can hold down a job in order to discount his statements if there's an inconsistency between his activities and what he says he can do they can use that to disregard his symptom testimony however the residual functional capacity of the algae found is severely socially limited sales they concluded he could perform  tasks that had no public contact no team work and only occasional changes in the work setting so an occasional interaction with coworkers so these are not jobs that are going to require a large amount of customer service like his conclusion with her courage was ability to work no dr thompson did not say i think he's disabled i think he's not disabled furthermore dr thompson did not even quantify the limitations she found she found he would his ability to adapt to routine changes would likely to be impacted by his reported symptoms of mood and anxiety and frustration but she did not quantify that in terms of whether that would happen occasionally whether that would happen all the  time the state agency doctors reviewed dr thompson's opinion and translated it into functional limitations appropriate for an hour of c and noted that for example his concentration would be could he could be distracted by coworkers and recommended that he not have a job where he was required to do team work so they took in she recounts some of her statement as best in certain ways and further  the question of whether remained for disability finding or remain for further proceedings would be appropriate i don't believe dr thompson's opinion clearly shows disability in a way that this court could find  remained for finding of benefits is required and i would point the court to the domingo's case where there was an adverse credibility finding and inconsistent medical opinions and the court found that that was enough to find that further proceedings were necessary if the algaes opinion was not supported by substantial evidence ability to work well it's a good question what's interesting is that if she had if she had just come right out and said based on my evaluation of of him today i believe that he's disabled that would be merit no wait because that's an issue that's reserved to the commissioner but what did she say that had it been credited would have changed so his well the likely his ability to reason is variable his stand concentration and persistence is the main thing she said is that his social and personal relationships are very limited and his ability to adapt to routine changes in a typical work setting that's i think the biggest the biggest limitation there and if that's you know that's the best we can we get that's that was the strong limitation or opinion if i could real quickly just just address the d d two hundred and fourteen again i don't know why the government won't admit they're wrong on this issue because there's a d d two hundred and fourteen dollars in the file it shows  and ninety one dollars in the transcript and it's just once again you're not the military doesn't put that you were in a station at four clayton for a month they don't make that up and the fact that the government keeps telling us telling you in court today that that's not what it is is just not not true for it or more or over time for thank you very much less one of the justices a question we should conclude i have nothing for that and thank you thank you i want to thank both counsel for their excellent arguments and this case shall be submitted