opinion this person has marked impairments and they can do that based on their clinical findings of their affectation and how they present but with something like hepatitis c medical records that your client has a long and sustained history of poly substance drug and alcohol abuse including methamphetamine use on a daily basis is there a security law that basically precludes the award of benefits to someone who is addicted and basically a lot of the symptoms that the claimant is complaining about flow from drug and alcohol abuse at this point it's irrelevant because even if and through most of the time period here she was getting an ongoing mental health treatment and chemical dependency treatment which and alcohol abuse essentially explain that disability but here the a l j went through the five steps and determined she was not disabled that there were still jobs that she could do so there was no need to talk about the drug issues that that aspect of handling that iteration to l j did what the regulations require yes he did ok and then the other issue that you were time out was essentially her symptoms and don't we have a lot of description in the provider notes and the evaluators notes many of them self reported with regard to what she could or could not do over a period of time there's a lot of reports in a lot of different lot of the records about about her activity level and that kind of thing through the entire time frame here she was mostly just staying in her home she's got a very severe social anxiety which arises she was on and off continuing to use drugs even though she was getting treatment well i guess the problem i'm having with your take on the record is that i did talk about all that but then he noted that many of the providers and evaluat had noted that when she's clean and sober she does quite well when she falls off the wagon then we have the problems that your folk more accurately she does better anyone ha better when you're clean and sober but throughout this time period there were long periods of sobriety in which she was still staying in her home not going out hardly at all but then they talk about her daily activities that chopping wood to going for long walks the cooking the cleaning i mean aren't those all proper considerations for determining whether or not she's completely unable to work yes i direct you to my reply before i discuss all of the ale j's reasons for  his interpretation and completely ignored many significant comments including her description of how she lies down three to four hours a day doesn't leave the house because she's afraid to go anywhere so it was you know even if you ignore all of that you just look at the things he cited her being able to walk her dog for twenty minutes a day none of those activities add up to the ability to work and you had the correct focus here which is let's look at the longitudinal record and see what that shows and ms deck herself encapsulated what the record shows a transcript for twenty one when she said when i am not using and taking my medications i feel pretty good about myself when using and unstable i feel worthless the record as a whole shows that when mystic was receiving treatment and medications she was able to function within the residual functional capacity that the a l j assessed and that improvement with treatment supported treatment and on her medications she was doing better she had clear speech stable affectation coherent and goal directed thought processes good insight judgment good cognition that support twenty one and that's what the record shows and that's why the l j was justified in discounting the credibility of ms dax subjective statements it also supported the l j's discounting of the three examining physicians d psychiatrists doctors bremmer krueger and lewis because they were not reliable indicators of mistakes longitudinal functioning when viewing the record as a whole which these examining physicians did not do  only required to discuss why significant probative evidence was rejected the l g did not reject dr hughes conclusion that ms dec suffered from hepatitis c because that wasn't rejected it she examined this deck and determined that her hepatitis c caused no interference whatsoever with her ability to perform basic work activities there's just no inconsistency here between those records in a decision which is why it would be an unnecessary exercise to require they'll jay to conduct further discussion what reasons do the l j offer for ignoring or not considering or not giving way to the opinions of rumor krueger and move well the ale j's articulation regarding those opinions leaves something to be desired it's it doesn't reciting any magic words of i reject these opinions because isn't that what is supposed well that would be optimal but under magdalna that analysis is not required the l j can provide specific and legitimate reasons for setting forth the medical evidence stating his interpretation thereof and making findings and that's what the l j did in this case at transcript twenty two the ael j noted that the evaluation support that the claimant symptoms would improve if she was actively engaged in treatment and not abusing substances these one time a valuation is without a view of the a severe impairment at step two and considered resulting limitations from that so the ail j's view of the record as a whole and his discussion of the relevant medical and testimonial evidence supported his rejection of those three doctors i think that's the step for analysis this could discuss the impact of her depression the residual functional capacity instructions she can do work that needs a little judgement or no judgment and perform simple duties that can be learned on the job in a short period she was very limited in her interaction with other people and so these are the types of medic yes she did what the three examining physicians doctors are krueger and lewis did not do which was view a more longitudinal view of functioning although dr eisenhower's opinion was offered relatively earlier in the period she did go through years of medical evidence which supported her  conclusion that ms deck could perform within the residual functional capacity as described by vale j mr staples the logic to milk you of this case that because she has problems with alcohol and drug abuse she's not entitled to benefits no the male j did not discount any limitations merely because they were attributable to drugs and alcohol what they did in this case is look at the treatment records and see how is mr jack doing when she's receiving treatment because impairments that can effectively be controlled with treatment are not  not with the opinions or reports of doctors screwless and bremer cited s c r twenty two absolutely your honor i'm looking at the record here with krueger basically he was discounting what she was telling him because during his evaluation over she was restless consistent with someone on methamphetamine and he reminded her that it was important to be clean and sober yes and then with louis louis indicated that he she didn't think that the claimant was a reliable and foreman and during that evaluation she was restless and picking at herself which would be consistent with substance abuse that's correct all three of these opinion of the need for treatment all three indicated that it was very likely that ms dex symptoms and limitations would improve with treatment but they were not able to see without the benefit of a longer review of records these evaluators are credible to the extent that they suggest that ms stack should be receiving treatment and medication which she was throughout most of the period but their onetime evaluations couldn't see that and so the l j was justified in finding that those opinions were not reliable indicators of mr x functioning throughout the period at issue because the l j provided specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting those opinions and because the remaining opinions that opposing counsel has been discussing are not inconsistent with the algaes opinion the decision is supported by substantial evidence and did not state any recent convincing reason to reject any of her testimony certainly not about the well i thought i thought it went over with you that paragraph where he goes where he talks about her daily work isn't that the to her and say are you teeth but if but if he knows based on what he says in his report that she has hepatitis and he's got all these other evaluators talking about you know the condition during this period of time doesn't  that's the only way you can measure you can't measure for him let you know how do you do it you know you really have to rely on the person's testimony thank you thank both of you for argument this morning