the opinions of treating and examining doctors in the security case and then the final issue in the most troubling is the government's argument that we should create a new flavor of deference to goodness rate expert witness called by the agency act the administrative hearing he is and your nose and throat doctor the problem here is that dr hodgson and dr black go way back and he wasn't the best medical expert can call for this hearing unfortunately apparently he was on a rotation list and there wasn't any conscious choice by the so security administration to call someone who had prior dealing with an aspect of this case but that's the way it turned out that he failed to disqualify himself when he must have realized that this case had you with a doctor he has had prior after serial dealings with  the subjective nature of tests that dr black conducted when in fact dr black developed many of these tests is a leading expert in the field and and we're talking about a very highly technical disorder and reason hospital were dr black a surgical privileges so here you have dr hodgson telling dr black well i don't like your methods therefore we are suspending your surgical privileges in this hospital which dr black didn't take very kindly to being one of  disability but it's all comes back around to dr hodgson laying this erroneous foundation and if you read the l j's opinion every point he makes about there being other evidence to support a finding of non disability comes back to dr hodgson who cannot outweigh three other doctors two of whom are treating doctors one of which is an examining doctor and by you know c f r twenty c f r by fifteen twenty a very very well documented case where over three hundred pages of medical evidence two hearings over eighty pages of transcripts of those hearings l j decision itself is twenty pages the primary issue in the as it is with many social security disability cases is things like doing medical information and opinions in this case it appears that the major issue has to do with whether or not one of the medical experts was that regard it's a little different because it seems to be an issue that's have been directly dealt with for however underneath thirty issue is the opinion of dr black stated that he believed that mr what other people do an issue of the bias argument i think it's interesting in that there's a question of where exactly does a medical expert that social security proceedings are not adversarial that it would be an actual conflict the regulations give an example of prior involvement in a legal action involving you meaning this claimant and i would like to bring out  not necessarily swayed by this fire issue i was like saying conclusion that's the issue needs to be taken in context the medical opinion that we're dealing with here is dr black sayin disorder so it's combination of impairments just plain old heavily for finding disability that in conjunction with government counsel has said a well documented medical record yes it is well got minute you've got three treaties an exam a doctor's office opining essentially the same thing that this gentlemen has a very serious disorder that causes extreme functional imitations whether these issues are reserved to the commission or not they must be considered and included in the residual functional capacity which was not done these limitations so you choose your disorders such as to balance problems vertigo blurred vision not presented to the east so we have no idea what's going on at the very minimum i remember for first of all unbiased medical testimony that would be nice to really hear from someone like dr epley who is and i meet in an adversarial proceeding good good when you mention workers comp that's adversarial this is supposed to be not adversarial and then secondly for further vocational testimony as to whether someone i see my time's up almost whether they can perform first i'd like to say