categories suggest disability they l j must weigh against any contrary probative evidence to determine disability proven for the record overall this is clarified next this is expressed least explain by the regulation twenty c f r seventeen point two zero for the disability happens that is very critical in this case because all the other records evidence value why are you able to say with conviction that he did not consider contrary evidence it was before him because if you look at his decision and the a consider the separate categories of disability evidence again only function or variable ghassan reason medical opinions but the problem lays in the fact that he did not weigh the validity of those medical opinions and their stated reasoning against contrary evidence and weighed against have a presumption that you have to work against not with respect to toll disability there is no presumption that that mr caudle is disabled he has to prove that from the evidence presented in this case and that you may be thinking of the fifteen year perception that only comes into play if he establishes that he is totally disabled there is no present proven in the pulmonary function during the time that he's no longer why is that well because if if we assume for the sake of argument at this juncture that he has told a disable from respond or standpoint than if that risk are impairment would be due to a macone osis generally speaking the point is not necessarily about whether the disability due to the point i'd like to make primarily is the fact that disability was not established by this case mainly because the elegy did not weigh the evidence against each other in deciding that that case is that point is made that is the these doctors thirty later evidence they can oppose these doctors to present them with later evidence and ask them to explain how their opinions are still reason in the law in the face of that but at least on the issue of the whether there is substantial evidence to support that you would concede that a separate issue and it's not one focusing on the issue of total disability is a question of law it's a question of whether the l j properly reviewed the evidence in the procedure that the regulations and the long requirement i submit that he did not look at the several categories of evidence  features that you deal as being an unconsidered are no evidence of consideration yes i would view those as the owners feel she feels way against the before which is the threshold there's a threshold step and then you get to the step judge clay's talking about your your point i take it is that the that the alginate failed it mixed the step and without meeting those the standard for articulating reasons for the first step before going to the second yes i see my time's up answer your question i think i think you have a doctor that made their opinion that was accepted by the director who does not give these cases why some science they approve nao as opposed to the eighty's and ninety's where they were proven three and four get their positions and that was done in this case of dr cancel and another argument as i understand it is he's he's not arguing for a certain decision he's saying this decision shouldn't be credited because they had changed decision because in the absence of some explanation by these two particular doctors who favored the the determination  in the absence of their explaining that they have reviewed it and figured out where it fits in their in their assessment these contradictory tests that came later that's i think the argument that you wouldn't you could help us with that you could address well because he's really not saying they shouldn't be deceased treated as totally disabled you saying you can't credit you know there is a there's a process and that's my understanding so because these doctors clayton and the four didn't they gave full program weight to those opinions without discussing year and a half to two years they can go back and presented that evidence that later did lie under developed evidence by their doctors to the first doctors and taken their deposition under the under the rulings of richardson versus promise  but looking at the timeline here but is that your oil your assessment is there was a time an opportunity to make the challenge that made here absolutely but then that you're taking i mean in reading the judge's opinion and really and realising that one of the one of the big reasons that there appears to be a pretty strong presumption  have the other influences of the medication but there's no rules to cover that i guess each each side sort of virus to get their own advantage and get the best test results within that framework but i think to address a point that lance coal is arguing about what in a on jay have to say in its opinion in their reply brief they say that where the record contains evidence which contradicts or detract from a position conclusion evidence which the physician did not see the a l j must explain why the contradictory evidence did not detract from the reliability of that physician conclusion before giving him or her dispositive w while we agree of course the males you have to explain their decision we oppose any effort to micromanage the words that must go into an elegy opinion given the variety of evidence that is presented to the sailing and algaes decision have to be rational and supported by substantial evidence that is always the requirement and that flexible standard allows the court to ensure that the algaes engage in reasons which you call this argument micromanaging the words in in that it seems to just look or a rational explanation in accordance with the language that's used in the in the regs to look for a rational explanation of this contract contradicting or contrary evidence if it's not in there yes that goes back to the point of whether you have a rational x explanation right rather than micromanaging the words well i guess our position is that it's just not always true though it is i really it is here so that is there was there is contradictory evidence in almost every case and that it depends on what kind of contradictory evidence it is whether the algae have to provide the explanation that the employer is asking for here so for example if one doctor does an x ray and reads it as negative and then six months later a second doctor does an x ray and reads a lot different i think maybe it is that's where you just have differing opinions this is the argument here as i understand it is did you look at this and how did you come to your conclusion in light of it when we agree that the answer has to look at all relevant evidence and explain decision we would just ask the court  to make any grand statements about when the evidence shows x and the o j must say why because we think there are times where there is contradictory evidence that the doctors haven't seen each other's contradictory evidence and a logic can credit one over the other without explaining why the lack of seeing the other evidence mix why the just a doctor's opinion is still reliable given that he didn't see the other sometimes you're going to miss saying all the all the hitting all the all the mark site i think that's your argument that that shouldn't the court shouldn't weigh in on that and require that that testing be your partner at the table about what about this case so if there's no grand rule we have faith that these attorneys can defend their positions we are concerned about you have a division of an act in general i think and there are doctors are tests i think that's the argument we're hearing that it's well it's kind of a big motion we we take the ball and we say we come out this side well except the occasional says that the court has to be able to understand what the l they could given certain facts to l j could credit medical opinions as a reason even if they don't reveal what happened so i don't disagree with the director the problem is the l g did not follow the procedure for explaining why these opinions are credible when all this evidence  evidence for that reason i think they can or is an option here and i guess one other thing i just would add in response to mr olson point about he seems to suggest that there's really no way that these medical opinions can be rehabilitated or undermine those opinions it's not our burden of proof to undermine the protections of the claims of an approved establish that he is disabled based on these opinions and based on the fact that if they are not contradicted by evidence as a whole at least where they held explains he made no effort to do that the director