good morning it please the court my name is a time castling on it i'm representing to now kelly in this matter kelly has been unable to work since february two thousand and seven due to the functional effects  combination of many physical mental impairments including degenerative disc disease rheumatoid arthritis psoriasis all manner opposite the depressive disorder generalizing zajac disorder obsessive compulsive disorder and p psychiatrist and ms wagon blast who was his treating nurse practitioner dr wheeler evaluated kelly twice in december two thousand and seven in february two thousand and nine and both times she opine that kelly had marked and severe functional limitations the ala j stated that he was rejecting dr wheeler's opinion because according to dale j it was unsupported by objective clinical findings and inconsistent with the evidence whole considered as a whole but neither of these reasons are convincing or even legitimate dr wheeler in fact described many objective clinical findings which support her opinion none of which were mentioned by the l j wheeler's opinion is in fact largely consistent with the opinions of care doctors or goza ms wagon blast and another psychologist dr myers all of whom also describe kelly as having significant limitations from her mental impairment doctor's error goes a value added kelly in may two thousand and ten and he found opined that kelly who had was unable to interact with coworkers in the public unable to perform work activities on a consistent basis unable to maintain regular attendance in the workplace and unable to complete a normal workday or work week without interruptions from her psychiatric condition he also says that she was unable to deal with the usual work related opinion because according to the ail j kelly was less than credible and he takes her performance at doctors or goes evaluation as a sign of poor effort this analysis is contrary to the ninth circuit's decision and ryan where this court held that in ale jay does not provide clear and convincing reasons for rejecting and examining physicians opinion by questioning the credibility of the patient's complaints with the doctor does not discredit those complaints and supports don't know how else to interpret them well it's interesting that the statement in some way i'm not even sure what that means because you know well it means that they didn't give it no way right right right but the significant point i guess is he did not accept any of the limitations the doctors or goes it described so to say he's giving it some weight doesn't mean much if you basically don't accept any of the limitations well he says something to the effect that the limitations kelly does have aren't counted for in the r f c so there is a reference to the limitations did except limitations on interacting with the public for example but with the a l j did not accept was that doctors error goes if it opined that she could not maintain regular attendance in the workplace that does not show up in the r f c he also did not accept his opinion about being her being unable to complete a normal work day or work week without interruptions from her psychiatric condition so it's not that he didn't accept anything so yes you're correct he didn't completely rejected he says giving it some weight but the most important and most significant limitations described as doctors are goza which were consistent with dr wheeler's opinion those were not included in the r f c i'd like to jump to another important issue here which involves kelly's psoriasis it's well documented in the record that she has severe psoriasis which is very painful and several different doctors described the lesions she had all over her body that were in various states of healing and it's not a pretty picture and it's very painful to l j did not even find that psoriasis was a severe impairment now his failing to find it has a severe impairment that's not harmful error but his failing to incorporate into his wrists residual functional in july two thousand and seven and dr dean found that due to arthritis and her back back pain she was limited to only occasional bending grasping and fingering those limitations do not show up in the residual functional capacity assessment and as he does not explain why he does not include them in the r c finally there is a once kelly's back pain was getting worse she was level he also is one of the doctors who noted the presence of severe psoriasis with numerous plaques all over her body well the l j does not mention dr laying by name and he does not discuss any of his clinical findings does not fully cooperate her testimony but if you don't mention the most significant clinical findings that support her testimony it's not fair to conclude that her testimony is not  air in addition social security recently issued a social security ruling sixteen three p which also talk which talks about how an l j is not to make an overall credibility finding but must instead explain which particular testimony he's rejecting and why interestingly sixteen three p actually is very consistent with the ninth circuit's rulings it actually says in there that they were issuing the ruling so that they would more closely follow our regulatory language regarding symptom evaluation and to be consistent with our regulations was up before the district court  it was not it was not because social security ruling sixteenth repeat was only issued i believe in march march and obviously was not before the ail j but because it's merely a clarification that i think the legal standard that this court should be looking at on whether or not the l g properly evaluated kelly's testimony what difference does it make i'm sorry what if if if it had been taken into account what would have been done differently and you haven't understand what ok well well you know it's interesting when you when you read the l g s decision it appears that he basically came up with a few reasons global reasons and then said i basically find her overall not to be credible because it is a large global reasons but he never specified which specific testimony was he was rejecting and why instead it was more of a overall global thing well that's not acceptable under actually wasn't acceptable under the predecessor ruling ninety six seven p it's not acceptable under ninth circuit law and now it's not acceptable under s s are sixteen three p he needs to actually link his credibility analysis which particular testimony is inconsistent with which particular evidence and of course his analysis of that was flawed because he didn't discuss the medical evidence that some portrayed her her claim instead just ignored a fair amount of it finally the l g also failed to i give proper way to the lay evidence from kelly's sister who provided a testimony that showed that kelly was indeed as limited as she was describing and also described the help that kelly required caring for her children and that was one of the reasons they gave for rejecting kelly's testimony is that she had i believe it's five children but some of the children were older and they were there's testimony both from kelley and from her sister that the older children were helping care for the younger ones finally because of all of these other errors the algaes arcee is  not supported by substantial evidence it's also based on legal error and if the evidence which the l j improperly discredited were fully credited it can only support a finally disability so i i now ask that any additional time i ha been reserved for a bottle you may think you predecessor ruling nine hundred seventy and i think that the actual reason that sixteen destiny p was issued was because there was a felt need on the part of the administration to emphasize that going forward credibility analysis was not to be undertaken by the ala j s in a sort of litigation style manner general evaluation of people's credibility because  of bad character or the like now to what extent that's been happening in reality i don't know i don't think it happened in this case i think it happened because of factors that the it looked at in the record but the point i'm getting at is that there is actually a distinction between the sixteen three p regime and the predecessor regime that it is not effective on this case because he made his decision in two thousand and twelve  which doctors are goes to because the conclusions that doctors are gosa came to were at odds in the view with doctors are those observations that's the answer to the to the problem of what is to be done with doctors doctors argos said she didn't want to be there or doctors argos infer that she didn't want to be there from her short clip dancers doctors argos observed that her memory was only slightly impair that she was fully alert doctors are  goza said that she would improve with treatment in a matter of less than twelve months or i believe it was twelve months or less he anticipated that she would improve with treatment well of course an impairment that can be improved  n with with treatment is not disabling in an impairment that doesn't last for at least twelve months is not sailing out of the social security act with regard to the limitations of psoriasis the l g did observe i believe the dr deem observed some symptoms of psoriasis but i don't think there's been a showing that any limitations that she would have that ms kelly would've incurred due to having the impairments psoriasis would have impacted her in any way that limited to residual functional capacity beyond what the o j found with regard to the opinion of dr lange i have to concede that was there that was aired by the ala j tonight also not reference to not reference that that opinion that's there and logical that she had a pretty good fund of information and that she diagnosed panic disorder with agora phobia p t s d cocaine dependence in remission dysthymia alcohol dependence in remission and o c d related features i think that that is harmless because they found that she had the severe impairments of depressive disorder generalized anxiety disorder and alcoholism and that's a fair summation of what dr mayer's assessor with and with regard to dr laying on the on the physical  form symptomology where a person is tested physically and you know no resistance and then zero out that part of the body gives way there is not a lot there in dr lang's opinion to credibly assert that she has more physical limitations i think then again what the ail j found for in the residual functional capacity so i would say that that's an error but it is it is certainly an error but i think it's harmless or i think that it was in consequential to the ultimate disability determination and that's the standard that we've had and it's the standard that i think is carried forward in the marsh limitations that's a given but what she did find she and her clinical findings are interesting because they're consistent with the opinions of dr wheeler and doctors dr myers observed the kelly was having a panic attack at her evaluations oh she had a clinical observational basis for concluding that kelly had some significant  problems with regard to dr laying there's several different harmful harmful errors involved in in failing to address that evidence one for stars is his he found that she had in the l j didn't conclude that she was one hundred percent great the male jay just concluded that she wasn't disabled and that she could do less than the full range of like work but that she could work and i eat our standard is substantial evidence in there as granted all of the a number of the people who that's why the r f c is not supported by substantial evidence the other big issue is the rejection i think of dr real or his opinion which was very clear that she had very significant mental functional limitations and those don't show up in the residual functional capacity assessment and if those limitations were there then there'd there it's a different situation he that's that's i think that the big harmful heiress here ok all right thanks very much i thank you both for