they basically repeat the domain analysis so in the new listing if you qualify under the i q you still have to have to mark in the nd part and those areas are similar to i think war of the domains at least three of the dome so i hope you don't the i q in one you make the listing because you've got the marker de sion but then you also meet the domain and now so in one sense they did not replace the old listing with anything substantive because the old listings are the new listing one essentially repeats the domain analysis i don't know how that particular quirk works its way legally but it's it's up to it does it's that or so i'm going to go right to the domain analysis because i think that's probably our strongest argument and the child marked in the acquisition information domain and i think there's argument maybe a very strong dr nordstrom in relation to a few different things and also in the psychological about the school psychologist evaluation which at least in one point a record follows dr norton really close in fact you don't see are the word extreme that popped up quite a bit in the substantive psychological report and i think that that says something good morning your honour's my name's leo much narrower pairing for the commissioner of social security the listing it issue here is one hundred and twelve point zero five and that describes an intellectual disorder these are the listings for children so slightly different from the ones for adults but this one really isn't that different i should say to my opposing counsel's discussion of the old listing there was a previous listing the listings are regularly revised if you were to look at the listing of impairments in the regulations at twenty c f r part part four of four you'll see at the very beginning of the listings there is a schedule for describing when they're going to be revised or replaced my point here is that the listing is obsolete it was replaced it was expected to be replaced they're replaced when there are advances in medical science the understanding of these impairments so the old listing is obsolete it was not intended to be applied  as soon as the new listing was published in two thousand and seventeen and there's no reason to go back in time and use a listing that it's been replaced by something more updated also is the commissioner's regulations in title to chevron de this is what the commissioner intended as published in the federal register that is that the listing in existence at the time of the adjudication l g s decision was the one that should be applied and that's the current listing also the opposing counsel that list and it's still a requirement it's just i think not the primary issue here and he also said that listing one hundred and twelve point zero five the analysis is kind of repetitive i'll have to agree on that it is but that is the way the regulation is written and really i think that just shows the focus on essentially the child adopted function and so they're asking the same questions in slightly different ways and the ale j s analysis here reflects f l shape march through an analysis of conflicting evidence here there's often conflicting evidence in the social security disability cases especially in the ones that reach this level of federal court review but the l j did address the conflicting evidence here and his analysis of the evidence points to substantial evidence supporting his findings could it have gone the other way i suppose so i don't really know but our our position is that substantial evidence did support the l g s findings  part of that listing is requires that the claim is that the child is so affected that they can't undergo standardized intellectual testing well that's not really relevant here because they are not applicable here because there was requires the child to have an extreme limitation or to mark limitations in various categories to l g s discussion covers that and i'll point out that the state agenc psychologists supported those findings l j found that the child had a marked limitation in understanding remembering replying information mild limitation interacting with others moderate limitation concentration persistence and  and a moderate limitation in adapting it managing oneself this is a page fifteen of the ale g s decision once you proceed past actually having to satisfy the direct curia of the list in another way that  child could have been found disabled would have been if the child functionally equaled the listing and that's looking at the listing criteria in a more expansive way that's also a highly technical analysis and  as i and opposing counsel said it is kind of redundant but that is the regulation is written that focuses on the claimants the child's functioning so for functional equivalence our position is that the claimant fail to show an extreme limitation and one or two mark them occasions in in two of the criteria there those criteria overlap that's the redundancy they overlap a lot with the  i should say that it's instructive to look at dr nordstrom's opinion since opposing counsel is focused on that it's it does contain i guess statements that are both good and bad for the disability claim but dr nordstrom's said that the child presented with good attention concentration after having taking medication at the page five hundred and twelve the child with co operative gave a good effort was able to attention concentrate quite well was able to comprehend  showing that he's not that far behind in his development he acknowledged that there were some problems with social emotional skills but repeated again that the child seemed to be able to complete task  when taking medication now nurse how come the primary treating source it appears noted the same with the child was taking medications in didn't really point out any problems there recounting what the claiming the child's father irrelevant the i q and the new listing was mostly have herb hyperbole in the sense that yeah it's been there but if you meet the nd prong you're also to meet the domain analysis anyway it's almost like they didn't replace the own listing with anything because they still kept the domain and  seriously low i q scores the are arguments about the domain analysis demonstrate that there are other areas that were  marked it's one way of looking at this a l day decision is to look at the great lengths that he went or him or her went through in order to deny disability often almost always in these kind of cases we are dealing with i q scores and  emphasize that dr nordstrom in the school psychologist there are examiners they're the ones that provide the the basis that show that in the domains  using the domain claimant is disabled and they are the ones that when you read their specific