e and within that he dealt with four opinions three from state agency doctors one from a nurse practitioner who just recently started treating mr sizemore and then kind of strangely he took a questionnaire that the the judge sort of did out as to the certain there are two opinions which he addressed as opinions but he ignored the g a s he mentions three but there were fourteen and he and of the three that he mentioned those were three of the four highest there were two fifties of fifty to fifty five now there was one other one that he didn't mention which was fifty five but beyond doubt there were psychiatric psychiatric offered  his situation is complicated you know it's my own view is that the records or the idea and if there had been no fault no play of j i s i think it would have given him a better view and and the review in court to a better view that this is a person who is extremely erratic and that it's not unusual for there to be a mixture of substance use with a person with bipolar disorder you know that that came up one of the cases that i cited in the brief and i  they are diagnostic and they are medical opinions but they might my view is that they do have to be of i weighted in you get a distorted view especially in a case like bipolar so security itself in the relations the alcohol part but at the end of the day he said look if alcohol is material to the claim that i can't consider the impairment but i'm not going to make that judgment so he  for for several years because i couldn't in my home mind understand how small security using its explanation and definition of what constitutes medical opinion did not recognize t a s as medical opinions it seems to me even though it's a that and i don't see that i don't see the difference but the so screwed ministration i think scuse me has now conceded that point because they issued an administrative directive i did not know up as and did not argue that the he he he extracted things from the medical records that were out of context and were plainly not reflections of what was actually going on with mr sizemore so it's it's part of the larger picture in that these are these communicate of ratings alone communicate to vocational experts has responded in some of these cases that that it creates a person or that you would classify vers disabled was such a load of j s i mean it's not this is not harmless i mean you were talking about the line crossing the line the fifty five's maybe suggest a person not disabled of forty fourth twenty five i think s the opposite as do forty five's of which there are several but without administrative directive i think that the so it's pretty admitted these and they say these are medical opinions and they and they referenced the regulation which says how you do with medical opinions i think the judge did not do that and he had and without doing that we don't know that liam time we don't know how he sorts through the evidence to say well ok it's only because he was drinking you know and that's why it wasn't limitation of concentration but also a moderate limitation in social function and any did something which i thought was a little unusual peculiar but he said that he had opted the psychological moderate limitations and social function and also only in concentration but then he didn't really make any allowance for it hit the for the concentration of the concentration and his question possibly true too but you know i can't just think through how just being a the non production rate means that you don't have to pay it and your job the the court and call inserted the the restriction does not the person's inability to stay on task and so whether you work in a fast production rate or you're just working i believe that there is an expectation has to be an expectation that you actually stay with the work the table jay did not ask will let me grant i mean but i think that that that is evidence is just not consistent evidence with with what she said i actually think i didn't do a good job of emphasizing cases as and this one as well usually involve conflicting medical evidence in the prison lucian thereof and this is medical evidence of claimants medical problems and associated functional limitations whether those function limitations  and how does that affect your ability to work and the issues however for disability evaluation look slightly narrower than that and it's what medical problems you have and how do they actually affect your vote or work related of that particular medical source a medical opinion serve opinions that come from the agency terms as acceptable medical sources this is essentially doctors or psychologists in this case  all of the opinions from the physicians and psychologists that were relevant and for most of them i believe mentioned the g s scores and where he didn't mention the g s worth it because he mentioned the actual narrative opinion or ability to do work related tasks and the limitations there are on and when the ill j is looking at an opinion or looking at medical evidence from a medical report say for certain dr and is presented with a narrative emphasize the component of the g f scale the americans like africa so she got relief as pronounced although it was in effect at this time it was supported by the american psychiatric association believe at the time of this ill g s decision accurate and that it's just not very hopeful as a predictive tool for diagnostic purposes however i'll say again that the agencies still recognize it as a possible medical opinion because the agency does take a broader view of what whether it's a g m score or whether a narrative opinion or whatever form it took from that particular doctor a psychologist in the l j cited evidence to support his findings as to the payments for mental functional of a particular psychologist of incident during that significant weight and as such there was no brief in the recent elegy didn't have to explain anything further although he did here because in dr king's opinion dr king did all the know as to the remaining issues raised by claimant about cherry picking and misinterpreting mischaracterizing evidence i would submit to the work that as i said initially these cases generally involve just remove that they just adopted a wholly different diagnostic from scheme with the d s m five and that you know people complain that i think it's true about subjectivity and some other issues with the g a o score but and again and again this is not going to go away anytime soon because it is still going to be seen as a display of how impaired a person is seen to be in terms of the judge having adequately reviewed the opinions mill status examination observations but the like the actual opinion of how in care is this person is being made by the person there and that is can that is in capsulated specifically in the g a a have i didn't say any doctors other than the that the judge can ignore something which does speak to function in ff and just ignore is just not built into the thing there were a total of what we say form teams for us if you count the ones there were seven from psychiatrists and seven from therapist is what i the i don't think it's that i don't think it will j j and not do what he's supposed to do in terms of valuing our of state but just a furry into a state agency not examining psychologists he can't just make a connection he has to make connection and i feel that