good morning ma'am please the court my name is econ kathleen on it i'm representing canada cornell you're in this appeal there has been unable to work since november two thousand and thirteen itself requires at least the man for a new hearing and that's all we're asking for is really an for a new hearing because the a l j never went beyond step four but for starters there were two for well fo no your had enough limitations that would prevent him from working in addition the l g rejected all of the evidence all the pinions from these four individuals and went to l j did was he was accepting parts of their opinion they said well you got mild limitations in certain ways l j accepted that and they didn't accept any of the marked or moderate limitations and they did not state yes i do disagree though the moderates did not all end up in the in the residual functional capacity assessment and the mark certainly did not or all of the discredit the examining doctor's opinion about your client's mental health don't the reason it actually makes a difference in this i know what you're referring to here the l j several times cited provided a string site where you can basically search through the file find every place in the file where it says no acute distress and eighty and you can just pull those out and say well look here's twenty points where on all these nd of all the fact that nearly not in the q distressed at a medical claim it doesn't tell us anything but the but the more important thing is that the mental health findings that he was deciding from all of those words none of them were from mental health provider does think it does make a difference i'm sorry but i think he said something like a sailor buying in is not enough but i'm looking at the record and it seems like it's pretty consistent that there were a oh absolutely there is multiple the problem with your what you're describing here is that and any mental health mental status examination you're going to misdescribe twenty different things and eighteen of those things are normal that does not mean you're fine and what the able jay has done here as he's cherry picked through the entire record finding all of the then the comment to show that yes you wasn't that day that doesn't tell us if he was depressed and the i think would judge graber pointed to which is correct is that the overall it's entirely if not entirely the treatment that showed positive findings only mentioning the ones that were not for mental health providers that showed thank you to findings i think that kind of selective analysis is not accept only got to look at the whole record and bases decision on the entire record observations i don't think this court can confidently conclude that no reasonable l j who evaluated that evidence is going to reach a different disability determination so th also made a significant error accept for you only went to step four and asked for you found that cornell your could do his task relevant for but the problem with the is that he could not do that work as it was actually perform because he'd been fired from it because he couldn't do the work his work was substandard and he couldn't do it as it is generally performed because the job he was doing was only one rd of an actual job he was there's a three part job he was doing one of the three parts and the vocational expert testified he's want to explain that so what we've got here is the  four medical opinions that were improperly rejected they evidence was probably rejected cornelius testimony was improperly rejected and a step for finding doesn't pass any kind of scrutiny careful scrutiny so based on all of this i believe that this case should be removed and in for a new hearing and give the a l j an opportunity to comply with the law and actually weigh the evidence if he's going to reject the opinions of examining physicians he's got to come up with legitimate reasons and as i noted i have i have a frenzy about the remedial request that you're making why would there have to be a whole new hearing as distinct from reconsideration of the evidence that's already been presented well as a general rule the appeals council always vacate an l j decision that has been reversed and the reason there would have to be a new hearing is because years have now  lapsed since the previous hearing and an l j hearing the case would be required to decide the case through the date of his decision so it's inevitable that they would have to re evaluat symptoms and as judge benito's pointed out he often had intact mental functioning on these examinations and several doctors well yes i'd like to ask you a little bit about that we have a couple of cases  doesn't actually and there is not actually evidence of medication improving a person symptoms then yes and in those cases we have a different scenario but here we have a and sixteen cornelia's said that he felt quote stable on his current medications and and the provider at that point said that he had only mild to moderate symptoms with good response to treatment in the past and over the course of this treatment record despite some depression and anxiety there's no question that cornelia has those impairments we're also seen mental functioning that is intact for example normal judgment normal in say no flight of well the evidence and i'm sorry your honor here i can wait for you to finish your question no i didn't really a question but i'd like your thoughts on that absolutely the the the medical records here are important in really two ways here with respect to cornelia's subjective complaints he's claiming that he sleeps thirty minutes a night that he that he can't do anything because of his mental impairment that he can't hold a job he has extreme short term memory these are things that he says he has problems remembering things for ten seconds that's on page eighty of the record and when what the agent does is he looks at those subjective complaints he compares it to the overall record the notes that i cited earlier about mild to moderate symptoms with good response to treatment feeling stable on his current medications pairing that with with these medical records and these are records don't have medical records that say you know this person's mental depression and anxiety are completely fine he doesn't really have symptoms there's no question he has symptoms accounted for for those impairments by including very very  sharp wish christians in this residual functional capacity limiting cornelia to just short simple instructions making simple decisions if you workplace changes only occasional interactions with coworkers and no interaction with the public these are very serious limitations that the age accounted for in assessing it clearly is depression anxiety but the energy also has records in this case that are showing that he has normal judgment that he is normal in sight and into an r f c and this case is more similar to the court's recent ford decision and ford in rejecting the claimants challenge to medical opinions based on the algaes assessment of medical evidence that the example the doctor thought that the claimant was highly distractable and her ability to concentrate was limited but there were treatment records that showed that the claimant had normal thought processes normal concentration and the l j took a look at these medical records in carrying out the responsibility of assessing an r f c based on the overall record synthesize those medical records and reasonably discounted medical opinions that were inconsistent with those records so  if and i'm and i'm reading here on page twenty nine this is in assessing dr when gates opinion less weight is given her opinion that the claimant would have marked limitations in the other domains of functioning as the record has noted a good therapeutic health so the point is that again under the regulations and under this court's long line of precedent and most recently ford the l j should be looking to determine whether or not a doctor's opinion regardless of specialty yes that's a consideration in the o j recognize that these were psychologists but regardless of specialty the a j is tasked with adult with comparing the medical opinion with the treatment records and with the overall record and that is what the a l j did here i did want to also address i see that i have about a minute just with respect to the lay witnesses that cornel decision the court as has held that where lay witness testimony does not describe any limitations not already described by the claimant the o'jays reasons for discounting the claims testimony can apply equally to the way witness testimony so i would refer the court to the decision and when you match what for example cornelius sr has described it matches very closely with the symptoms that cornelia is complaining about for example problems focusing problems socializing so the opinion regard with regard to medical improvement there is no evidence of medical improvement that was a meaning that was sufficient to allow him to return to work there is similarly the fact that he was able that's a good thing that's what y being a consideration i don't really need address that i don't think the l g a acknowledge that he was rejecting the opinions of both treating examining psychologist the treating physician who was who was treating him for the mental illness so really i mean he never on obviously never acknowledged that all of the treatment notes he was citing were from non mental health people and he was not addressing any of