good morning honors the mornings john johnson i'm here today appearing on behalf of mrs cristie pryor i like to reserve three minutes for a bottle mrs pryor was receiving benefits at under the sole streets dinners for a child on the grounds that she had a d h d she was later re evaluated by the social security administration under the adult standards and found that she could go back to work the social security mission has made no determination that there was medical improvement this is prior contends that she should be entitled to a continuation of her s disability benefits on the grounds of having an intellectual impairment these standards this is a section listing apartment section twelve point zero five c requires that there be evidence sub standard intellectual functioning along with the deaf it's of adopt a functioning with an i q of seventy or below and also one other additional physical or mental impairment the district court noted that the government conceded that two of the three prongs in this test were met that dispute now centers on whether miss prior met her burden of proof of showing seventy what the l j said was that all of the i q scores were invalid we contend that was air because neither dr oziel nor even the state agency doctors dr caruso righton and the other got that they did not say that the eyes accused scores were invalid we contend that there because if the judge believed that those i choose scores were invalid he should have gave some reasons for doing that there and there were done actually maybe trying to help people with this never mentioned in the seventy at all and your argument is that alone requires remains i believe that does require a remain and your honor to fill in fairly guilt the record here what else is there again that looks like this issue now the focus really is on whether she met her burden of proof of a showing of deficits not adaptive functioning here for a describes it as pretty basic whether a person is capable of handling normal daily problems affairs and independent living this young man this young woman has been ling with her mother her mother testified she has to take this young lady to the store here  evidence such as going to special education having poor grades and working at an unskilled job in mrs and miss prize case dr oz we will mention that she had been going to special education and she also had very poor grades and c attempted to do some work for about two months for the big county department of behavioral health and since she had to quit her job  mentioned in step number three that she had a seizure disorder but it would appear from the record that her sister door sort of was under control we're not really claiming that that is a severe impairment any more it would appear to be under control your honor what we are contending though is that while it's court mentioned in the founding case that if a person has other at this nal physical or mental impairments that's step number two found to cause more than a minimal effect on the person's ability to work this meets the additional criteria and in this case the l j mentioned that in addition to poor intellectual functioning that she also had a p t s disorder and an anxiety disorder stresses and to adjust to changes in the work setting and she turned twenty two at may of two thousand and sixteen and all of these dr oz visas work was done in two thousand and thirteen so we contend that based upon the evidence here that substantial is does not support the elders finding j failed to prove to show to discredit mrs prior's testimony that she had very severe mental impairment here and he did this based upon her daily activities and also that there was evidence of medical improvement while this court has held in many cases that person has daily activity going to show it really occupies a substantial part of the day and she had a few activities but it was read to her mother that took care of everything here and as to medical or other people here so looking at the entire record here there was been no medical condition she continued have very severe mental impairments we also contend that administrative law judge erred when he failed to include dr oz of evils additional limitations in his residual functional capacity finding here that she had a marked limitation with regards to the job stresses and time and ability to complete a normal week a normal workday in a normal week without interruption in psychological because of her psychological symptoms here and we're also finally  erred when he failed to include those same limitations in his hypothetical question to the vocational expert that all the dail all the l j found in the way of residual function passy and the limitations in this hypothetical was that she was limited to unskilled work that only required her to understand carry out a one step instruction and to occasionally deal with or interact with supervisors and that these job descriptions are included in exhibit was attached to the opening brief this is a docket record number fourteen we've asked the court to take administrative notice that these jobs both required the capacity do repetitive or continuous work contend that the l j erred by failing to consider his limitations because it would have an effect it was not a harmless error it would have an effect on it was inconsistent with her ability to perform repetitive or continuous work remained for correction of error or remained directing the order been fits well we would contend that the record is complete and that all the issues have been addressed and all the remitted in order to have a full developed of the record here because there is the judge never made a specific finding as to deficits of dept of functioning he just simply said that she was had the residual funk evidence which was unanimous in concluding a claim which claimed it could perform simple work the sevens also includes the treatment records which feature and indorsement from one of claims to providers that claim it should continue with education and employment as a form of a a recommendation as well as claimants demonstrate improvement with in her symptoms when she was compliant with prescribed let's focus on listening twelve point zero five c and with regard to the s score the indicated that she doesn't qualify or she hasn't met the criteria under paragraph c because she does not have a valid verb or verbal performance or full scale i q of sixty through seventy and a physical or other mental impairment posing an additional and significant work related limitation function that seems pretty inadequate in light of the acceptance of the i q testing satisfy the introductory paragraph requirement anyway so it does sound to me like an argument for firm and on any basis in the record because i don't see any specific and alice's of whether she met the introductory senate then isn't that an argument in for a firm and on any basis in the record you're saying oh forget the fact that the checklist was done wrong the three steps under twelve o five c because the introductory paragraph was  a criteria that she borne the burden on right that i get your argument right so far ignored the burden and she didn't didn't meet that burden it's that that is the argument part your honor and it's also an articulation issue which is that i think this court does not require the greve articulation is being suggested in terms of having to go through each prong or it doesn't have an amazing as effect but i didn't see an analysis on that that the government relied on so that's why the panels pressing you on isn't this an argument for  basis in the record can you show me in the analysis where the significant some average intellectual functioning with deficits that manifest before the age of twenty two where that's analyze dr as a veto had noted and and her desire to start college and so all of this evidence in the system plus claimants the the records that we mention are answering breve such as the descriptions are very educational records that show that records also underscore that the educators in and the team that put together ip they noted that there was obviously a discrepancy between her her academic achievement and her and her intellectual abilities but they explicitly said that discrepancy was not due to in the report they used the term mental retardation so they do not link that discrepancy to intellectual disability so that was noted as part of the ip plan and so i think that for not mentioned in the decision but i think it's worth noting as well that the very same physics bigger same examine psychologists who assess the i q of seventy also the same time still found that claim it could perform simple work so the same examiner who s reasonable one job so these are the most basic jobs available these are only simple one or two step tasks jobs and so this is not to say that there aren't any you know severe impairments or significant limitations falling from claimants all right thank you we don't have any questions thank you very much for your argument and now counsel mr johnson i think there's still time left all right and next time you visit as you can stay at counsel table until the arguments concluded oh thanks i just want to just a couple things opposing counsel mentions the prior determinations by so security when she was a child is really irrelevant we contend that's really not the case school records show that she had a part time school a lot of discipline a lot of conflicts that there's the e p planned that said she had some serious problems here but that the most significant evidence i believe is a determination by dr gross a state agency physician in may of two thousand and nine said that he had it that she had a mark limitations in acquiring and using information and interacting with others so there is a foundation going way back when of an innate inability to process information share a lot of difficult that and this is consistent with that this what's this is the foundation that the administration really erred because they disregarded medical opinion even from their own sources here at without explanation as they're required to doctor also said that the test results might actually understate her actual actual ability but if you were to reject that perhaps an explanation would have been warranted well she had really multiple problems in addition to intellectual deficits and adoptive function here again she was had to go switch schools here because there was so much discipline bomb suit had to transfer to the process that can school to continue her special education and all the way through to the end she was not functional again because counsel the matter submitted for decision and we're joined for today