are using this brief that there is no evidence of a mental impairment i don't discourse that fact in its brief yet the very evidence sided by the commissioner to supposedly support this finding says much to the rendered in access one diagnosis of pain associated with both psychological factors and the general medical condition likewise dr who examined this fleming in conjunction with her worker's compensation claim gave the same diagnosis as part of that part as part of his diagnoses he said that she suffered from a chronic pain syndrome with to him that number one she suffered from a serious psychological impairment he did not however say that she was disabled or not to stable he simply concluded that there was a serious psychological impairment mental health referral after that she never actually started receiving psychological psychiatric treatment but wasn't there a referral to for the purpose of determining whether or not  disability is reference made in his report yet none was ever done as far as i know in conjunction with the worker's compensation case after that period of time there was a psychological evaluation done so these two doctors that you're referring to  indicate that she really wasn't prevented from working by whatever it was it wasn't it wasn't going to affect her working that's what commissioners argued your honor and when i would document was i don't believe so i believe dr move sa nobody said i don't read it that way or are instead the reason why number one the checklist form that he completed clearly contradicts his narrative in his narrative he specifically said at the end he didn't know may have difficulty with saying the pressures of work i know where you're focusing and and that's what i'm focusing so at the end they say listen summarize tell us your bottom line and that's what he thought well then there's the question of whether or not we're going to mean i understand what you're saying of course we can't pick and choose but you know a trial a fact has to somehow pick and choose people say a lot of things in a trial and the tr what seems to fit the picture of this and your honor i think within the context of dr maloof opinion if we were to assume that his bottom line is you say didn't fact conclude that she that she couldn't  of various positions and the pecking order the report of the proverbial one shot doctor paid by the commission or the weight that we give that report has to be tempered against other reports and are clearly the other reports of record just in terms of their length were much more copious dr maloof quite frankly to a large degree his opinion if we do read it the way that you're suggesting your honor stands out pretty much like an island other she repressed her feelings and that she really hadn't come to the grips come to grips with the fact that you suffer from a significant depression now assume that a form disorder is a listed impairment recognized by the commissioner a form disorder under paragraph twelve of the listing of impairments can provide the basis for disability we're not suggesting that the medical evidence in and of itself says that the court or that the ministr lawyer judge should have found her disabled by virtue of her mental impairment what we are suggesting your honour's is this that that is a distinct difference from somebody saying there's no mental impairment whatsoever that should be undertaken in assessing the mental impairment he simply did not do that he concluded that there was no severe mental impairment and therefore he never went on to go through the rest of the process to determine whether or not she could do various good morning my name is john custer i represent the apple each only in ballpark question of social security i'd like to address for the court the general issue of yale to raise evaluation of the medical evidence including the new arguments raised in  need not recite magic words in order to find and a medical sources opinion not to leave and then finally going to tells us that the court may draw specific and legitimate opinion and that i'll point out is the same standard that's required for evaluating medical evidence relating that those three principles of analysis the evidence in this posen counsel argues that there is some doubt here but i think the court should correctly find that it was the ael j s obligation to evaluate the evidence in this case and to let me say that fibromyalgia arose fairly late in both the medical evidence here and i believe also when the l t s decision making as i read this what the l j found was that the fibromyalgia complaints which were diagnosed rather late in the process didn't establish an impairment that met the twelve month to ration requirement the first mention of it comes up in dr johnson's it does refer to some findings and it's quite isolated but i think the ultimate conclusion of the l j was that even if the fibromyalgia diagnosis is established that there's no evidence of physical work yeah he said he could do light work or indeed now there's there's a point raised in the palace reply brief about that which i'll address if you'd like me to but what i think is pertin here is that there was plenty of other evidence that supported that conclusion there was state agency doctor opinions there were consulting examiner opinions from prior to dr johnson's report and then the claimants previous work of course only required some really sedentary work with the sit stand option  a point out as well that with regard to dr maloof state narrative reports statement that that issue was addressed in the appeals council's notice declining review where they inched indicate clearly that dr maloof is really very hesitantly saying that the claimant might have a problem clearly  to weigh the evidence here and make make the conclusion i think that's what he did there was reference to also to dr morgan for all the male j doesn't mention it in his decision there appeared actually to have been two reports and one of them is cited by dr johnson in his report the september eighth report is the one that suggests that there might have been a some out of form parent assume out of form diagnosis i should say subsequent report which dr johnson refers to as experts of record page ninety nine states that he johnson as you correctly point out clearly did not believe she was incapable of returning to her past work also it's clear from dr johnson's report that the limitations he imposed on the claimant will based entirely upon the claimant subjective symptoms so clearly the court can infer that the a l j was not persuaded by any part of dr johnson's opinion that was based upon the claim of subjective symptoms and then finally i probably should address the issue of whether or not the workers compensation the definition should have been addressed by the l g a in other words dr johnson's report was  as clearly seems to me with the l g a has done here there was nothing in dr johnson's object to findings that would have suggested the claimant was unable to perform work as defined defined as light by the social security administration's regulations address first with regard to opposing counsel's argument regarding the fibromyalgia i'm hearing him suggest that the evidence came late in the game well the reality is that is referenced throughout opposing counsel is brave and i believe i mentioned at some point in my brief that my suggestion would mention it twice i think he used the word my suggesting it's my so called lead argument clearly not that's not the