the evidence and his conclusions and they also failed to properly evaluate the opinion of the treating psychiatry dr callahan in addressing the subject of complaint analysis first page thirty two of the administrative record the l j says that quote the fact that the claim it was looking for work suggests that she did indeed retain the ability to perform work related activities well this court is held in the hill versus hold in case that the mere fact that someone is looking for work or desires to work does not allow for an inference that the person retains the ability to work and in fact in this case there is in this three year period of time during which we have medical records for l j reference one time when ms gerstner told her psychologist that she was going to be looking for a factory job i don't even know if she actually ended up looking for that  job inference is inappropriate similarly similarly at page thirty three of the record dale j says that her training psychologist dr nichols recommendation that the claimant increase her activity level suggests that she retains the ability to perform considerable tasks despite her impairment but the psychologist was merely telling his very depressed very and anxious pain and yet the fact that the neurologist on a neurological examination did not find significant neurological findings but then diagnosed her with five of my algebra doesn't discredit  complaints in fact it supports her the diagnosis of five of my all just because it is a diagnosis of exclusion so it doesn't claim that she had a neurological disorder so normal neurological findings don't undermine her exceptions after callahan noted relatively normal mental status examination that's not true based on the on the record as we pointed out in seven of the thirteen treatment evaluations that th anxiety sometimes with chest pain there were two periods of suicidal ideation possibly one suicide attempt with an overdose of worsening memory concentration problems and kind of on an island that you know they did not so they all day erred in finding that they were mostly normal mental status examinations that's not true but in addition they all day failed to follow the regulatory checklist of factors in twenty c f r for all four fifteen twenty seven in evaluating dr callahan's opinion and at page thirty seven where they all day specifically states why he's giving that doctor's opinion little function scores twenty one times in his treatment notes of those twenty one times three times they were in the moderate range the other eighteen times they were in the serious seriously impaired range which includes the possibility of being on able to hold the job opinions were consistent with dr callahan's opinion then there's an opinion of the treating nurse practitioner is not scott and laci only saw the descriptor one time when she filled out her opinion her opinion was completely consistent with dr callahan's opinion similarly the records from the social worker ms cisco ms ghoster had to see when her insurance ran out she could no longer see dr callahan her records show the severity and i'm going nature of his g opinion that she might not be able to handle the stress of work and would have significant limitations dealing with supervisors and coworkers and consistency is one of the important factors that the l g is supposed to consider in when you're treating psychiatrist period and six years seems to me that he was more for million her condition and limitations than any other medical professional who evaluated her callahan's opinions were entitled to controlling weight certainly should his findings in consideration than they were of were did he well i  have a range of medical opinions kind of all over the map on the mental limitations and they all j lo is a medical opinion by him to the reason of the absolutely absolutely o j gave it due consideration but when you look at that of agric both yeah bipolar disorder a d d he continued to describe medications to treat these conditions and even changed her bipolar medication in her treatment history or what she reported then dr callahan had a section on what his actual findings were based on the subject of complaints lot of what opponent reported does not appear in those findings and that the time the findings that are there including depression the o j did acknowledge that when the l j said that these are mostly normal findings the algae did point out that that dr allen did find depression and so on and that's it's an important distinction between the her mental abilities were limited to the same extent or even more and that fact like with the nerves smacks as opinion suffers the same problems as dr kenneally hands dr nichols while dr nichols did not put forth an actual opinion about the appellants residual functional capacity or limitations dr nicholls notes again if you look at those notes they do show almost always normal mood they don't show a lot of very many and all of the normal findings and again the helen points to what what she believes are abnormal findings but in fact are once again a pelt recording of the poet's treatment medication in particular not being taken for six months but there's no indication that the appellant was not taking her other medications during the same time period or going for her other treatment during that same time period so the record simply does not bear out that that the opponent could not afford the five miles of pain medication in particular and the o j use that example no one wanted to describe how despite that not having not having taken her fib ia pain medication for six months that examination thereafter was mostly normal there weren't there weren't as much reports that there was a report of improvement and so that that was really the thrust of what the l g was saying there the o j was not there was indication the record that the opponent could not afford any treatment during this time period and despite not taking that that medication for whatever reason miss kerr sinners a condition improved that was the point of brief i believe about half of them showed no abnormal findings whatsoever and most almost all the rest one showed just want to have normal findings and it was depression and again the l g a did acknowledge that did not consider the fact that that you rightly consider the fact that at one point she was actually looking for work did not draw a conclusion that therefore she must be able to work but it is something it's a piece that undermines  peers that she'd been treating with for six years doesn't undermine the treating psychiatry as opinion that if she had to work that she would not be able to relate predict predictably or act in a socially appropriate manner or that she would miss words and fact the evidence shows that ms gardner testified that she lost she had to leave her job the five years of blockbuster because she had a mental breakdown she could not handle the stress and she got another job that lasted six months it's branch also had to leave that job because she could not handle the stress so that those are the kind of things that dr callahan was saying and it was really his opinion that was critical and also like to point out that  e five sixty one of the record one of the more recent treatment notes from dr callahan he noted that his gerstner ears condition was very treatment resistant and that's an important factor so a lot of the commissioner saying well really the doctors records don't show significant problems the treating psychiatry as the saying that despite all of this medication he's given her despite the therapy she's getting the medication changes her condition was still treatment resistant is there an explanation for that he does not know there's no explanation but he tried multiple medications and adjusting the medications and sometimes they worked sometimes they were side effects so we had to change the medications but despite that