in connection with that i take it then you disagree that there are in consistencies between his observations as found in his notes and the opinion that he  therefore was bound by what he said at the very end even if i'm going to use a hyperbole here even if everything else that he says doesn't support that conclusion while you're on i think what's important is that  this is a fully informed opinion by dr walk off it's not as if the activities described in the decision were not known to dr walk off in fact they come directly from his reports to dr walk off the psychiatry wrist despite knowledge of what the claimant was doing felt that she was unable to succeed in a work environment and the l j i think is undisputed that there's no other medical evidence in the record undisputed what i didn't hear and there's no other opinion ok but the l j cast aside a fully informed opinion from a trading psychiatry list in favor of her own impressions about what the claim its activities added up to i mean the discussing the claimant is making candles and doing a giant puzzle and that indicates quote a great ability to concentrate even under stress and quote so how on earth can the ability to do a puzzle  and on page two ninety three the doctor certify that it was based upon objective findings and not only on subjective complaints so the doctor has made that affirmation at the end of the art of saying and everything is  relative and this is an individual who has considered suicide attempt at it as a child then tells everyone she has a plan and the fact that she's still around and i think in relative terms she's doing fairly well because the alternative could be much worse the other thing page nineteen the judge says the claim had a poor installed that involve planning in dealing appropriately with contractors well how do we know that they are they simply made a bunch of leaps of logic that are not supported by the record and it was not properly developed if they l j was going to rely upon all of these findings in the notes and i call the decision my ambush and i stand by that she should have given the claim of the chance to explain well what was your involvement with the pool did she plan it or was she hiding in a room when none of us know she  were someone a doctor says mild moderate mark that's not specific enough and simply because the doctor writes that a person is doing go to doing fair that should not really control the day i think when a doctor takes the time to fill out a form in detail to give a detailed c and then certifies that it's based upon objective findings i think that the l j cannot simply give that little weight in favor of her own opinion as to what this individual can or can't do i would agree with you if her own opinion were founded on her touching on various other things that she finds in the very presentation that comes along with the doctor's conclusion that is that doctor's notes about what it was well that i should she have done more and you know summonsed him ahead and said you know tell me about what was going on when you wrote each of these things i think if the l j had questions as to the doctor's  making these leaps on page twenty one of the record in the decision i think is i think it's painfully obvious and the second paragraph based on the fact the claimant could do cruises shot baby shower candles and cetera it is reasonable to conclude that she's able to constantly understand carry out remember simple instructions the l g a is fashioning her own medical paying and they're later in there says it may be inferred that she can at least frequently respond to supervision and the last sentence a person who can handle these kinds of events would be able to constantly deal with changes in a routine work setting l j is creating a medical opinion here because there is no other opinion from a consultative examiner even from a non examining physician that they can rely upon i think the treating physician will means that the opinion of a fifteen year treating psychiatry just can't be cast aside when there is nothing else in the please the court i'm in it was peter jude for the commissioner so security your honour's the commissioner's decision that monroe was not disabled is supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error and therefore it should be affirmed first i'd like to discuss  importantly the l j reviewed the medical records at length document in how this opinion was both not well supported by clinical diagnostic techniques and was inconsistent with other ships other substantial evidence for instance the o j noted that some of the limitations in dr weil calls report were drawn from the talents own self report indeed dr robert walker of put direct quotations like quote i don't work well with others and quote into the opinion as information he she can you know do some brain scan of really doubt whether that's the truth earlier on or a psychologist has to rely on a lot of claimants herself right almost almost exclusively however taking such notes and inserting them directly into opinion and making the commissioner accept such limitations as binding on the commissioner would be going too far we can't the l j is empowered to consider the that she she cannot work well with others now that comes out of the nodes certainly more pollution certainly around or more narrative explanation would have backed up that opinion and made it more believable however the opinion doesn't it includes direct quotations with quotation marks a busy psychiatrist reporting a bunch of information trying to help his patient that get on to the next yes your honor and i take your point that we of when a person is stating their limitations to their doctor or their doctor transcribes them that does not turn that into opinion that it is merely reporting of the symptoms second the energy noted the that dr weil comes treatment notes reflected mood or altered afaik only occasionally despite huge ongoing stressors in her life difficulties with her husband  thoughts all the time and there was no evidence of racing thoughts in the entire record during the relevant period and indeed the magistrate judge went through the record in trying to find evidence of racing thoughts and found only yet despite stating that the treatment notes reveal that she goes on cruises she goes on snowmachine trips she takes international travel she worked part time or ever been on a snow machine trip y i have your honor right how much talking to you get done with anybody else's on that snow machine do not try not to be too closely runner but you ride all day and you come back to the cabin at the end of the day and there you are you have plenty of dogs these are clearly inconsistent with the opinion that she has no ability to deal with the public and no ability to deal stress forth a noted inconsistency instances in wh monroe was examined by her primary care and she denied symptoms related to her mental health she affirmatively denies depression and anxiety several times her primary care physician so ultimately disability as to the and as i understand the eldridge opinion she was relying on the presence or not presence of the right word that there were a number of low level jobs for which eighty five fifteen and the medical field creational rules which contemplate this type of work unskilled work by regulation involves dealing primarily objects rather than data people substituted her opinion for medical opinion the commission's regulations specifically call for the l g to consider all relevant medical and other evidence when assessing the error see as it's in it's incorrect to state that the  j cannot cannot make the r c finding absence of cool pinion indeed this court has held and said on several occasions that even when the treat when the record la happy to receive every thank you thank you mr miller excuse me mr jewett sorry mr miller you've got two minutes for with regard to the last contention there raised by the commissioner in cases where the impairment is extremely minor law is that the l j need not go out and find a medical opinion to state for example that a hangnail is not disabled but in this case there's an undisputed severe impairment with fifteen plus years of medication therapy by a psychiatrist this is not the case where the l j can simply cast aside the opinion of the treating psychiatry list and rely on nothing but her own thoughts as to what the claimant can or can't do i also want to point out that they are of seeing on page two ninety one of the record again this is not an overstated our of see a doctor walk off indicates the monroe would be off task thirty to fifty percent of the time he could have checked the other box but what he's saying is that a majority of the time the claimant would be functional but thirty to fifty percent of the time she would not and under the regulations an individual needs to be on task for the vast majority of the time to maintain employment if someone's off task thirty to fifty percent of the time they're not employable but they still are relatively stable most of the time so i don't necessarily think that his reports are inconsistent at all and i believe but psychiatry notes they often read doing fairly well things like that the point is that this individual was on seven different medications and his medications have side effects and monroe testified that she was tired all the time and that's another factor i think d very properly considered in finding she was after asked thirty to fifty percent of the time taking seven medications i probably be off task even more than i am now so that's another point that i think should be considered your honor