we will turn to the next missing woman dina versus commissioner social security good morning kansas good morning your honor i'm sorry i was having trouble hearing  the court this case is a some security disability case it's one in which the primary issue that we present to the court is whether the psychiatric suffered by the plan to diminish her ability to work consistently with respect to that question we think that there are two errors by the administrative law judge st we believe that the  administrative law judge erred in the weight given to the different opinions there are basically three opinions one is from a treating source point of saw the treating source saw their office twenty eight times saw the treating source twelve and sixteen time saw the the counselor there but saw them twenty eight times that that individual that psychiatry asked who's a specialist in the field i believe that the plaintiff had diminishment his ability to work consistently indicating more than thirty three percent indicating more than four days that is consistent with the finding of the examiner for the defendant as dr marianne moore who is a psychologist  moore did her examination and felt that the diminishment to ability to work consistently maintain a rigorous schedule was up to markedly diminished moderately to markedly as the court probably knows the categories are no that the judge should have found would have been later and we don't have any complaint with that but certainly state the onset than us she does it with all security at the very beginning and the law is that the administrative law judge educates the entire period so even if there is a short period prior to st treatment  if there is a period that she's disabled vet exceeds the required three hundred and sixty five dollars days then she's determined to be disabled during that period if not then the judge determines the entire period and certainly can find you see this all the time in cases where they find a partially favorable decision where the administrative law judge finds that for whatever reason either the disability and start to a later date set forth by so secur so security meets with the with the claimant claim as an representative and but even if represented still you can allege an earlier date the judge can find a later day or the judge the administrative law judge and different case might find that the pla would know that best your honor we believe is the treating psychiatrist we have a treaty psychiatrist here who who who gives an opinion and the treating psychiatrist opinion i mean it's one thing for you or i the treating psychiatrist again claim and saw dr shah office twenty eight times twelve times a doctor shop and he is the one who felt after everything that she was diminished in her ability to work consistently so we certainly would defer to treating psychiatry just as opposed to well i might think war or the administrative law judge might think it is the training psychiatry just clearly the treating psychiatrist in this case and clearly his opinion is charts opinion source opinion was basically not accepted and the only opinion that was with almost no with almost no explanation by the administrative law judge was the what was the non examiner who didn't even have the records and even when he looked at it didn't seem to appreciate the report of dr askew data so certainly we think that the treating source opinion backed up in full by the non examiner by the examiner who actually got to see her on behalf of the defendant and at least not inconsistent with the non examiner that the finding that there would be zero diminishment inability to work consistently zero diminishment in the ability to work consistently without absenteeism misses we're just not just clear up for me if you would the nonet not examining doctor for the social security administration if i am i right he did not have d shah opinion two thousand and sixteen opinion available to him is that right because he was doing this examination before that took place that the chronology right or wrong is well it's more than at the non examiner did not have any records certainly did not have the opinion and even the record he did have which raised from dr scott davis to ninety two dollars to ninety four dollars who found a number of psychiatric issues and he had that opinion the non examiner but he didn't even reference it or that as he didn't reference any of the issues he said no psychiatric treatment and a week before she she had been there and he just simply ignores it so yes to the co simply a question of weighing the evidence i think i'd have to agree with you that there is evidence in the record that is dr hartings opinion that supports and as you say matches the a conclusions but i thought the argument as mr gordon formulated it runs a little more like this the a l j failed to give controlling or even significant weight to the treating doctor d as he's supposed to do so that it's not a one dollar to one dollar to one dollar tie with shah saying she's disabled hearting saying she's not and doctor more saying well maybe i don't know each side can pull things from her opinion that supports either harding or shah but they're not equal so what is it about dr shah's opinion that is inconsistent with concrete medical or clinical findings narrative provides the same predictions he describes are as good overall and stable you know that she's well controlled i medication and she was doing better she also had robust activities of daily living to support this conclusion such as volunteer s conclusion well let's start with that the plank of self report is that there are days in a row on which she cannot get out of bed and i thought th credited and supported that so i'm not sure how that is inconsistent with the fact that when she did get out of bed and gets a dr scholl's office she was more or less fun this is one of the issues that was directly contemplated by the treatment until mid twenty's sixteen over a year into the period we did talk a little bit about nurse so i just wanted to clarify that she was a nurse who the plaintiffs saw once in the early period and not again  and also when she went to the further examination state stated that she was not receiving any counseling or psychiatric treatment so it is limited to talk about step you are you aware that the  e was a recommendation that this person work as a maid in room attendant yes photocopy machine operator or a semiconductor bond or do you think those jobs really exist lydon room attendant where well hotels in the northern district i believe are now closed or working at minimum capacity photo machine operator it's my understanding i'm not the most technically advanced person that photo copies a produced without an operator standing by and i don't know what a semiconductor boundary is how can you tell this woman that there is a job for her when these jobs sound how crazy that's  good ok so experts specifically testify that these jobs are available in record in the requisite number for example the lady room attendant he gave you know that there are twenty one thousand jobs in the in the national economy  you only show up sporadically well be able to say finding was that this individual could maintain a schedule that she would not suffer from excessive absenteeism and that was supported by the record that was supported by trouble with you that she could do it well it was a decision that was supported by substantial evidence it was one there was a saying it is a daily living such as volunteering at a dog shelter and on jogging every day it was supported by the medical examination records which showed that she was capable of maintaining attention and concentration and it was supported by the opinion of dr harding and dr moore and an l j is entitled to take that evidence and reach a determination citizens and work that requires no more than occasional interaction with supervisors coworkers or the public so there is no argument that she was limited and she was properly limited to this reduced range of work and within that range of work there are jobs that exist that were specifically outlined by the eat and the commissioner met their burden and therefore to demonstrate this plaintiff is not disabled and i'd also like to point out opinion which is really the only evidence pointing in the other direction of all this in addition to being inconsistent with his own treatment notes is a checkbox form which doesn't really provide a detail or analysis for how he arrived at these conclusions that were so inconsistent with his own treatment records twenty eight nations all showed these are remarkable mild findings so there really is a lack of support and this was the ale j s analysis to when he went through the issues and weighed the opinions he reached the same conclusion because it simply was not supported by the record and he specifically went through these issues whether she would be able to be remain on task very day whether she would be absent from three days or more per month and the findings here were supported by evidence to each of these if it did the l j make a credibility finding  out i guess as a prior question did ms medina testify before the l j yes miss medina and did testify and did the l j make a credibility finding about her claims of being not able to g plaintiff's own statements undermined her argument again that she was volunteering regularly multiple times a week jogging every day playing golf going hiking so really if you look at her statements do you find support for the m j decision plaintiff is the treating doctor is just not true looking at the issue of ability to work consistently there is no opinion that that says that she could that the standard for social security examiners on any issue whether it's sitting standing lifting billeted to deal with others go to war is non mild moderate or marked dr moore says up to mark restriction maintaining rigorous schedule moderate to mark restriction whatever that may or may not be it is not none and the not examiner said the same thing a little he only said moderate but that's t r seventy seven and he indicates specifically ability to maintain or to complete a normal work day and work week a couple with a couple other issues on page seventy seven dollars he says moderately limited so he says what the plaintiff can do what in doing it she will be moderately limited in maintaining a sketch and in a completing a normal workday dr moore says up to mark and dr shah gives actual numerical where he says thirty three percent so certainly not being inconsistent with modern mark when you consider there is marked moderate mild or none and both the consultants the examining and non examining find up to mark and moderate so we do not agree with the assessment of the government that with the issue with respect to the issue of doing it consistently not with respect to the issue of doing the job but doing it consistently that the only evidence or the only opinion is dr shah we think there is no opinion that says she can do it consistently the other thing very briefly is with respect to her daily activities and clearly and this goes along with point one clearly there are day she can do it the problem is the rd day she can i i'm going to highlight again the defendant the defendant's examining consultant doctor more and  and and anon examiner and the administrative law judge says that that that report shows that she can do everything consistently but it doesn't it says that she could shop cook spends time sam time and family only once you'd in isolation which he actually says is that she goes for more days without dressing bathing and grooming she tries to do a little bit of cooking cleaning and laundry but she rarely does so she has friends but he never sees them  and she's withdrawn she cooks twice a week out of seven cleans once a week out of seven does laundry once a week out of seven shops twice a week doesn't perform any childcare and showers three times a week so again everything's consistent when she's good she's good but the judge has to consider how much time when she missed any he doesn't and when she's working which should be off task thank you