d have the regulation that they were using the older regulation on controlling white here and but behind the regulation is the logical shorter but it was it was over the course of several months and it was a part of this thing operating on the same provider group so there was a multi year treatment history from the same whether they're one time and then the psychologist or no time examining kind of psychologists that they met the inconsistency is not caused by the psychologist lesser qualifications because what we have here are treating psychiatry that would never do it and so how can you say that the treating psychiatry or us who is inconsistent with environment comment for opinion as to what the claimant could do in the competitive work environment and that that air is made in this treating psychologist dr drew bransby who in april two thousand and sixteen completed a checkbox psychological questionnaire and a mental residual functional capacity assessment now on both of these forms dr dobriansky checked off several boxes to indicate his opinion that mr trottier had marked limitations in most of the forms of vailable categories now the elgin addressing this opinion acknowledged that cited two reasons st doctor to bransby had only been treating mr trottier for six months at the time he completed the assessment and secondly and more importantly dr dombrowski is opinion was may be true the fact remains that dr dobriansky failed to explain any basis for his extreme conclusions about mr trotter years condition either during or before his treatment relationship with him attention and concentration and adequate memory in the medical record throughout two thousand and twelve through two thousand and sixteen l g reasoned that these findings showed a fair ability to remember concentrate interact and adapt and therefore a finding of moderate limitations in these functional areas was better supported finally they o j observed that there was quote no good basis in the medical evidence of record or testimony to find the mr trottier would be off task or absent excessively and of course the medical evidence they l j sided reasonably supported his conclusion that mr trottier was not markedly less in the many functional areas that dr disputes the l g s reasonable conclusions in this case but these findings we submit should be upheld under the standard of review here addressing the crump case briefly we would  this case is distinguishable from the court's holding in crump for two reasons we now have a new regulation which specifically defines what moderate limitations and concentration persistence and pastes our agencies recent rule revisions which are political to this case because they were effective january of two thousand and seventeen they clarified that a moderate limitation and concentration persistence or pace means that a claimants functioning in this area independently appropriately effectively and on a sustained basis is fair and the agency stated in the rule revision that its definition of moderate as defined there and was consistent with our that case the l g a had given some apparent recognition of the claimant's concentration persistence or pace difficulties when he actually incorporated specific functional limitations into a nd hypothetical specifically being off task twenty percent of the time or otherwise requiring two unscheduled absences per month however in its decision the algerian crump critically failed to acknowledge the ve the vocational experts response to left the residual functional capacity determination altogether uninformed by considerations of off task time or unplanned leave contrast in the present case the administrative law judge did not neglect vocational testimony relating to any concentration persistence or pace difficult likewise during the hearing when asked how his mental health system sometimes affect him mr trottier mainly emphasize the fact that he experienced mood swings  and he emphasized his difficulties with housing and his difficulties with his his mother's health and nothing really with regard to the concentration difficulty and then just very quickly mr trotter claims that the l j erred in placing too much weight on his ability to concentrate during short treatment sessions with respect we would ask the court what other evidence the algae have to consider other than treatment notes doctors reports and hearing test him and when each and every treatment note says that mr trotter years memory is intact and he's able to follow the interview we submit this is significant whether mr trottier chooses to believe it or not the commissioner does not dispute that mr trotter has a significant mental impairment he's been diagnosed with and treated for major depressive disorder this is not a and maintain pace while working however your honour's with little to no actual treatment notes or diagnostic evidence of limitations mr trotter is asking that this court improperly really weigh the evidence  decision in this case is supported by substantial evidence and should be upheld now the main issue mr trotter is raising with regard to the moderate limitations and concentration persistence or pace it's certainly familiar to this court in a line of cases on this issue that are recent the court has made it clear that the rules pertaining to moderate limitations in concentration persistence or pace are not static as mr trotter would lead this court to believe no magic words are needed to accommodate a moderate concentration persistence or pace rating instead this court has told us that an administrative law judge must look to the evidence indeed even engineer even generic limitations such as limiting a claim it's a simple routine and repetitive tasks such as here may properly account for a moderate concentration persistent space rating as long as they adequately account for the claimants demonstrated psychological symptoms found in the record your honors in this case the administrative law judges residual functional capacity determination sufficiently addressed how mr trotter years moderate concentration persistence and pace of rating affected his ability to stay on task and the evidence for a record did not warrant limitations beyond those contained in the hypothetical so whatever supports the residual functional capacity to do in this case the l g a offered a specific explanation for accommodating mr trotter your severe mental impairments finding that he was limited to simple and routine work tasks involving only simple work related decisions and frequent contact with that this limitation adversely affected his ability to understand remember and carry out detailed instructions although again as i mentioned mr trotter we voted yes you have one minute remaining thank you very  much i'll close up although mr trotter reported stress about his physical medical issues his living situation and its finances and his mother's deteriorating health his mental status examinations showed relatively mild anxiety and subdued mood as well as appropriate affectation adequate attention and concentration and adequate memory we submit the o j was explicit in his rationale and his decision is supported by substantial evidence so for all of these reasons making of the a l j and not the claimant the treating psychiatry review the whole treatment record which was a part of the record where he worked and offered an opinion about function in the competitive work environment that is a different than identifying sometimes over the years to mental health treatment and then ask his doctor to give the functional statement in relation to the competitive work environment ring the examining