rejection of the treating physicians disability opinion and the third is the scaling to develop the record by failing to call medical expert going to obtain veterans administration records and failing to obtain the prior social security file with respect to the past relevant work issue i think the briefs are fairly straightforward l j found that the plaintiff was not disabled because he was capable of working as a telemarketer the record is really clear mr alexis never worked as a telemarketer reversible error has occurred and again in this case it's typical of what we see frequently in social security matters the judge did not do a functional analysis of the telemarketing job at least with respect to the mental functional requirements the telemarketer or or a christian crisis counselor in addition there is also evidence from dr white male and examining physician that mentally mr alexie would not be able to perform that job dr schneider was another doctor who also said he doesn't have the empathy to be a counsellor he has too much anger he has a personality disorder and he's not at all suited for that position i would assume that if the third issue in this matter is whether or not the l j fails to develop the record this court stated in less diverse chatter that in algeria is required to consider the combined effects of mental and physical impairments and based on the actual situation the l j did not call a medical expert even though the social security rulings ninety six dash six piece specifically states that a doctor's opinion is required on the issue of medical equivalence in a case such as this where there are serious mental refer to a prior social security application that the l t a should not pick and choose and only look at parts of the record or only submit parts of the records to the entire record and our position is  the l g erred by failing to put the entire social higher social security case into this class thank you on medical experts that only applies when the medical when the record is not fully developed in the medical evidence is not fully developed yet five doctors on the record here we have d set up a line of distinction between mccarthy in this case where an mccarty the v a findings were i believe in the transcript and they wish there was no question but that the point if it comes off and said here look at my v a records and this is this that he's only a partially disabled person i mean the v a disability is very different from the social security disability in that respect now they have ten percent twenty percent in increments of ten percent disability social security disability it's kind of a zero sum game that we have a it's like this one where there are multiple doctors opinions that you know every opportunity has been taking to get the point of an opportunity to prove his case that he is disabled i don't think that there's an record but i guess it comes down to what you're definition of a fully and fairly developed record as well thank you westray is a record isn't fully developed because all you have this statement about a finding we don't have the records is not saying it's not fully that whatever they've said would give great weight that is that is the position that's fine that's what it means but i mean for all we know the v a records with show affirmatively that the claimant could do some kind of work might say he's partially disabled but he could do for we don't know what those records show but i guess the question is who's burden is that to go get those records and submit them and i will i will argue  indicated earlier by the panel no impairment that is going to prevent a person from being i tell marketer is going to prevent them from being on the phone as a seven hundred club christian counselor and vice versa