case that's pretty simple stacey mora had a heavy duty psychiatric record and at the hearing the medical expert felt that there was not enough evidence to make a decision and so they had a supplemental hearing were another eleven records were put in that showed that she had been treated for twenty years she's had thirteen locked electric shock therapy she's had a numerous treatment but those records and that discussion were not addressed in the hearing in the decision the decision based itself on the medical expert at the st hearing who said there weren't enough records and the decision in the d d s were the same situation happened so it's pretty much just procedural because the hearing was based decision said the psychiatrist who treated her for twenty years there wasn't enough treatment there were no objective testing but the whole set of records that were admitted afterwards at the supplemental hearing or not addressed so there isn't a substantial evidence that supports they all she is hearing our decision it's  problems and her mental case she was she was she had suicide idealizations and she worked with her psychiatrist for twenty years and when she went to idaho she moved  she still saw her psychiatrist through skype and then she got another psychiatry dr bot and so anyone who's treated her or who's seen her who's who's made an evaluation finds her u nable to sustain work and concentrate and focus but that was not addressed because of those records or not considered by the way so is there any areas that you would like me to good morning your honour's this is brian lou appearing for the commissioner of social security the social security regulations set out several factors that analogy is required to consider when evaluating medical opinions one of these is whether or the doctor present a relevant evidence particularly medical science and laboratory findings to support that opinion other factors or whether or not the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole treatment notes contained little if any objective clinical findings and what i mean by this is dr the selfless treatment notes included a section designed to document clinical findings we're talking about things such as an abnormal mood or the press mood or difficulties with concentration and memory as the commissioner has described in and his brief and opinion was not consistent with the record as a whole for example in march two thousand and fourteen a treating provider reported normal thought content and form insight in judgment that was intact and example intact memory normal concentration and intelligence miss morris states that the issue here is whether or not the a o j considered the additional evidence that was said made it after the st hearing this was not addressed and missed more as opening brief to the extent the court feels like this issue was properly raised this has been addressed by the at this record the eight looked at all the yet fishel evidence and simply found there is nothing in change a medical consultants opinion this record pointed out miss moore has not pointed to any evidence that would change that and even a miss  i've looked at the evidence and i believe there was additional evidence submitted by dr bought this was a new doctor that began treating miss moore and after she moved to boise in idaho and is simply no assessment or medical pinion offered by dr bot that indicated she had any work related functional limitations and that respect to the extent there was no evidence to change the nd doctor in boise didn't find anything which was disabling then of course that doesn't change his case no but if he did find something disabling is not the obligation specifically cite portions of medical records as to why he doesn't accept the treating doctors venue yes your honor in this case these point to me anywhere in the record of the decision  mentions anything about the substance or value of the boise doctor's treatment records it would have pointed to such reports if dr bob had indeed portion of the season in which he mentions the findings of the boise doctor and any reasons why he shouldn't be considered i can't point to that in the a zero g s decision your hon discuss such evidence so it turns out the issue of whether or not above medical opinion is helpful to ms mora that's correct your honor all right thank you  and just to i just to reiterate agency regulations do dictate that clinical evidence is as a primary importance and the o j when evaluating a doctor's opinion needs to consider whether or not that doctor offered clinical evidence to support that it's consistent with that assessment and this case there simply was no such evidence accordingly the decision must be a these opinion the silver conducted laboratory and psychological testing after two thousand and nine but you don't point to anything in the record to show that the silver in fact conducted laboratory or fight psychological testing have to two thousand and one could help either so the laboratory testing of course starts when she has a compulsive you know the electric shock therapy before and after she's also going into medication treatment so the commissioner argues that there should be an objective standardized test sorry rather than develop your argument could you answer the question i asked you is there something in the record that you provided that shows that dr de silva conducted laboratory and psychological testing after the year two thousand and nine please answer that question i would was i'm going to have to say that i'm not trying to get around this it's just that dr bot and dr de silva were working together because one was in idaho and one was in california and so the two of them were treating her with different trials of medication and i conjecture you know i propose is your claim at this point that when you said th medication we're talking about retore psychological testing there's no electric shock therapy after two thousand and nine so i would say there's no there's no electric shock therapy but if you're on the medication considerations by the medical expert at the hearing that this is a whole lot of of medical you know psyche psychotropic medication being given and he didn't understand why and that's why they opened up the record and brought in al evidence to support the continuation of this treatment oh so i should interpret the quick words conducted laboratory and psychological test we have to two thousand and nine to very severely chronic progressive disease that mrs moore has and they've been she's never been not under treatment and it was not addressed by the l j address well what happened was they asked for the records of the treatment because they said well there's hardly any treatment what so what what was not considered that would have helped your client well i have record from dr bought that was not considered that you think would have helped your client's case the whole yes just addressing it because it it it's it's not doctor but it's not independent from doctor so i don't know what you mean forgive me but when you say just addressing i overlooked forgive me for interrupting but i'm trying to get at right what was overlooked that you think would have helped your client or change the outcome and you think it's dr de silva two thousand and fifteen about evaluation plus doctor but back up and i have to say just so that we understand the situation this treatment every time they're trying to do a trial of psychotropic medication there's hope that maybe this would help and unfortunately it's from progressive and it hasn't helped but there are hadn't seen her enough and hadn't done laboratory testing and so we're looking at the whole the whole treatment because it's been severe she's been hospitalized she's had electric shock therapy and she moves because her her parents can take care of her in idaho and she has to get another psychiatry and the two of them are working together so yes the evidence the dr de silva in two thousand and fifteen is addressing he's also talked to  doctor but and he's considered you know the treating physician and he puts that report in did you raise this issue before bush ok and in judge bush's in the district court that issue no no no no no no she suicidal and doctor dr de silva in two thousand and fifteen writes for the supplement for the heat this hearing that's going on all the details of why and the suicidal inability to concentrate her focus on her physical problems and she believes her medication conflicts with it now that's the that's the clients discussion with the psychiatrist but what they're saying is she doesn't have the physical illnesses do not seem to be due bill tating but the psychiatric evaluation which is in there by dr de silva the treating physician and dr bought work to focus and to concentrate it's you know she's she's the treatment has not worked for her electric shock therapy did not work for she had twelve sessions of it and she's you know gotten progressively worse no one who's treated her  said she's fine she everything's just fine and l j didn't address that he just said that the d d s who looked at the evaluation and the medical expert he's relying on that but they didn't have the whole record so they're not in their statements are not addressing the whole record and the medical expert at the hearing said i don't have it all of doctor to silva's records and we brought them in and no one discuss well i would like my for my client to this to be credited as true doctor to some of us treating psychiatrist has you know twenty years of records and treatment and and progress and it's supported i would like it credited as true on the other hand it could be discussed at least addressed because this is pretty evident from the whole record it's when you have a half of a record it looks ot and that's what the well it's it's it feels very clear from my standpoint and i think that you know my colleague is trying to bolster the decision but they will chase decision