mr richter thank you your honor good morning and may it please the court there are several issues in this case but they all essential boil essentially boil down to a question of whether mr belongs limitations are the result of a personality disorder with skits or traits and nesting disorder with extreme busy spatial memory and processing limitations or whether the social security administration's ultimate assessment of him as a who was exaggerating his condition for monetary gain better explained his limitations there's more at stake in this case than just appellants ten year struggle for disability benefits and the financial hardship he's had to withstand in order to endure that struggle the social security administration has concluded that mr belong is a dishonest actor in this it says it right neil jay's decision she concluded he was exaggerating his condition for monetary gain its its point of appellants contention that if you are going to conclude that way about a claimant who happens also be a person you'd better logically confront the evidence which suggests your conclusion is wrong and that didn't happen is that your richter is your in your view is the best evidence in this record that would tend to show the exaggerating behavior which i think another another doctor contracted by the social security administration who was hired to actually examine mr delong and to assess limitations based on that examination  as as you know the social security administration does have a policy or regulation that by by its default is to defer to and a doctor who is actually examined the the claimant and can assess the behavior and make make judgments about whether that person is in fact simply milling gring that he was so he was so limited as far as his thought processes go that he he was operating under some sort of alternative logic that he hal and you have that with that mr richter is i i think that's a fair description but it occurred in two thousand and ten did it not and you have the medical expert dr brooks that comes enters the picture as a way of kind of canvassing all of the other opinions and then you do have other opinions from treating physicians the two neurologists i think dr herman so it's so in other words if there was nothing that happened from two thousand and ten and dr blake forward i think your positions pretty good but you have some facts on that timeline that you've got to deal with with other treating physicians do you not well i understand your honor but there are those those those those positions are also supportive of our position i believe when you look at dr herman  long's thought processes were so compromise that even if he were to be approved for disability benefits in the end would have no longer have any incentive to choose manipulator milling or he would there's just no there's no question in the record that herman found meaning from a lingering well there are the well that's a subjective issue here i think your honor i think were also diagnostic issues if herman had meant to once you get them a lingering analysis or evaluation done as part of the analysis then it's going to obviate a lot of the other findings that happen so if there is perhaps there is a medical professional the psychological psychiatric professional who can desegregate the milling growing aspect or see how it's grounded in the schizo weighed component but that's not in the record here that that separation is not present that's what we're struggling but i think it's hard even for the the the medical doctors to to make a very clear distinction when it comes to that because psychological impairments are inherently somewhat subject subjective it depends on what the the the patient is telling is telling the doctor and so it really is you that it's difficult that here you run into the problem that the burden of proof to show the disability is on your client not on the commissioner at this stage right but you also have again we go back to dr blake but also we have the neuro psychological examiner dr vogel who who said that he is his his personality disorder and i believe she diagnosed schizo affective disorder as well we're we're so we're so deep seated that even even psychotherapy would would probably not so ingrained in this alternative thought process sees in he it wouldn't be effective on him because he's not he's not right for for that sort of therapy that's what led to our still to our nd hearing in these proceedings that's correct your honor and when she reminded one of the grounds that she remained on was further exploration of the moderate c p p limitation as she saw it in the record correct  in your brief on page forty you point to the program operations manual by way of saying that in the nd hearing there was flexibility and latitude to deviate from the moderate in other words to to find mild as is you know reflected in the nd l j decision that's now under review of force can you say more about that i was curious in other words whether that remained created these are my words not anyone else's kind of law the case if you will hear that on remand you're bound by the by the moderate determination by the district court correct your honor well in that remained at that point the is were they allowed to change i mean if if the previous proceedings sixed that part of the record at the moderate level then you wouldn't be getting new evidence i think where you're being asked to explain under what legal authority other thor eighty was this level of severity reopened for reconsideration new evidence re read decision yeah exactly it seems like there was a there was a full blown nd hearing in which new evidence was taken a new findings were made but that the the terms and conditions of the remained order are what they are so you may be right it would just help for you to explain it more certainly the law under the law that means the court needs to bind to their rights finding record and find that the long had mild not moderates concentration persistence repaints yeah that's what i mean that's descriptively accurate for sure do you know of any specific law though in our circuit or of other circuits that have addressed this point sense i mean but at that the l j opinion that judge magnus jensen was reviewing certainly thought that there was moderate limitation and i'm not sure whether you're making the argument that those findings always disappear after remarriage and it's open up or whether you're sort of making a sauce for the goose sauce for the gander you know if if you know mr  but that's not what the court does under the substantial evidence standard of review in the courts more than a year since so less than one hundred and the court only looks to whether reasonable adjudicator can agree that the most with evidence and unless you have any questions at rest on my free thank you very much then anything further mr ritter oh yes sure and i wanted to touch just briefly on dr brooks it sounds like commissioner wants to rely on dr problem with that because there's a problem with dr brooks his testimony he missed some things he he inaccurately testified that that there was no samantha form disorder in the in the record there was a doctor herman's examination mr rich have for that but i don't i don't have i don't have a specific authority your honor but just as a citizen it's my understanding that when a federal court give someone an order it's it's an order and it's to be followed and respected and that's just my civic understanding of how how courts work in the united states and then the last thing i wanted to sum up really quick because commissioner has said that there's no doctor's opinion in the record that exceeds the r f c put forward by the yale j well you need look no further than the state agency physicians who reviewed the case at the very beginning who found there would be a moderate limitation and in maintaining a normal work schedule or a normal work week there would be interruptions and psychologically based symptoms that would that would implies some time off task and while commissioner is correct that