improperly evaluated the opinions of a psychologist who evaluated mr paul after request of the agency did so by first of all not evaluating some of the opinions and secondly by giving improper reasons for rejecting the opinions that were evacuated and then secondly the fail to totally account for miscalls moderate and the difficulties with concentration persistence and pace or pace both in the residual functional capacity assessment and in the hypothetical question examination wrote a thorough report that starts at page two eighty six of the record goes through to ninety one and on page two ninety one of the records came up with several opinions of this court to say they are j as a matter of law fail to fulfill his his duties as set forth in the regulations one of those duties is to evaluate just actually through a lot of these cases mental status examination and i think the court and i can't give you the name of the case off the top of my head but i think this court has recognized that in the brain but that doesn't show what we're talking about here so if you have to rely to a great extent on soft reports or you know so i guess for the first issue of  one was the one that you mentioned judge wood that area it just doesn't make sense to give less weight to somebody who's evaluated somebody wants as opposed to give and then give more weight to somebody who hasn't got away with them at all something it shows something if you're evaluating her credibility but even if if and that's not the issue here even if it were the judge then has a responsibility under the regulations to say why wasn't it that you were exactly there are that the judge has a couple other reasons that he gave for not for only giving little weight that the opinions were of a good nonspecific there again there's a said free of production rate pace is too vague to be helpful and so that i think free of production rate base is equally as good morning mail please the court my name is meredith stark and i represent the acting commissioner of social security the l g a here provided specific and legally sound reasons for his determination that dr paul's opinion entitle to little weight that determination in the g s residual functional capacity findings were both supported by substantial evidence and therefore we asked the court to affirm the decision i don't understand the one time visit reason because it seems to not treating physicians or health care providers they have been given this person for a one time event so it's a giant waste of time they're all they're all encounter incompetent well i disagree on that it's a giant waste of time or that the factor applies equally across all that or one time visit applies to every single one of them because that's the nature of the relationship but i just don't see any reason even even to mention the fact that it's a one time visit and why it would take somebody who sits down and reads the file over someone who's actually sat down to talk to the person and recorded things that are capable of and indeed work or operated in this record whether it's visits to you know other health care providers or things whether it's you know how will the person is relationship between the the physician or psychologist providing the opinion and the claimants is designated in the regulations as a relevant factor this court has upheld that on many occasions but yet when you phrase it that way though i don't have any problem with it because the ale chain might say this is the treating physician this person for the last fifteen years i'm a little worried about objectivity the able jane might say this is a one time stranger agency consultant no reason to worry about you know advocacy or anything this person has no incentive to do anything to give an honest report to the agency if they want further evidence or this person never laid eyes on that on the individual and we're talking about psychological conditions that might not be visible from a piece of paper so sure the a l j can can look and see what's the nature of the relationship but i'm not sure that privileging the piece of paper over somebody who actually saw the person without some explanation makes the slightest bit of sense it can't be that you saw that person one time and i saw the person zero times and therefore my observations are better well that certainly not with the  reconcile the ael change comments and say that's not what he did here when he gave the examining the doctor the agency examined doctor who examined her want less dream opinion based on a one time a valuation but i don't know what so think about it and she looked at dr powells opinion there and actually one of the things that bothers me about some of these cases that if the doctor said it how did she does this prevent her from working then the then the l j would not be required to give any deference on that point because it's not a medical opinion however if mr powell had offered specific limitations you know she can only concentrate for this month she can and she can only do these types of tasks certainly that would be a proper opinion from a medical provider if she had a basis for it that's not what she said in fact it's not even what she observed she observed that this was paul had no distracted already during the examination and well that's not quite right in behavioral observation she's on time for the interview oriented person place mood is ten number seven that to me is she going to syria and she had no problem with other arithmetic she answered all of the other question many of the other questions correctly answered judgment questions correctly the entre certainly did not say that she has no limitations is not entitled to in the mental areas it's not like you broke your leg and everybody can see that the ball is in the wrong position she has a significant history of very  compromised behavior i guess also a daily panic attacks are the racing thoughts the mood swings difficult with her children and needs help episodes of cheerful how subjective reports to the agency and to her physicians i disagree with your honor's assessment of mr paul's history and whether the record is a very short record with very little mental health treatment there is very little in the record to suggest that she experiences are limitations mentally in fact her later providers said that she was medication seeking and disability seeking and that provider declined to prescribe some of the medication that mr paul sought so i disagree with your assessment of the record and more importantly the l j disagreed reasonably with that assessment of the record the o j looked at all the evidence that's clear from the from the decision there's no powells conclusions are consistent with the evidence but what's the explanation i agree with that general statement but what's the explanation or what can we determine is the explanation for that broad statement that sentence you're under the that's the first part of the sentence the second part of the sentence is she not she was able to continue managing her household and caring for her children to him that leads to be mixing it again i can understand the second part of that sentence but adding in that first part without explanation seems to be vexing it may be somewhat confusing your honor but i think it's reasonable to read as despite this lack of treatment which is clear from the record there's very little mental health treatment nonetheless manage her life including caring for a deaf child and translating for that child in his school regularly i would certainly undermines dr paul's conclusions that she had such problems in interpersonal relationships you couldn't function in the workplace thank you very much