as treating psychiatry just that missed a stroll as major depressive disorder caused mark limitations in much of her ability to function on a day to day basis and on a char and instead erroneous d that her analysts would always be exactly the same as it had been on one date september fourth two thousand and twelve after flash will of the other physicians treatment no unfortunately he did not he did not have any treatment notes he based his the entire history of her treatment on what mrs strella told him and she is not a very good historian given her illness  records that are in social security's possession but they did not do so and so dr flack could only base his determination on what he saw on that one date september fourth and that happened to be a date is known to be cyclical and if when a person cycles between less severe depression and profoundly severe depression then then in fact the seven case that that person is not employable that half the year she is pretty much a basket case and doesn't leave her room in the other half she might be able to do a simple job that that makes her unemployable and as this court has said in all courts of appeals have said in order to be able to work an individual must be able to do the job day in and day out in the competitive and sometimes stressful conditions in which real people operate in the real world and that means full time not not to say to an employer excuse me boss but i'm going to be out for the next six months ok because that's not ok now but the other the reason that the a l j gave for disregarding dr drone the reason that he stated in his decision  basically that that she and hallucinations well that is not the dividing line for determining whether somebody is disabled by mental illness the this court and other courts have said you have to focus on whether somebody can work not whether they're suicidal homicidal or hussan aiding oh and that she didn't have copped cognitive limitations meaning she wasn't mentally retarded  and and all of these are true but that doesn't render her employable that if so then social security benefits would be restricted to the most profoundly impaired of the of the impaired the test must be can this person do a job and so then the second reason that the a l j discounted  dr drones reports and as you want to know is he submitted three reports and the second and third reports which were done in october and november of two thousand and thirteen showed that mistral is actually getting sicker than she had been at the time of his first report in two thousand and twelve although even in two thousand and twelve her illness was quite serious between the two or more state the reason why you would find more credible psychologist determination as opposed to a psychiatrist but having said that in the o j really focused on dr drones global  reject the treating physician that is one factual manifestation why shouldn't that create precisely your honor that the global assessment of functioning scores has been discontinued by the american psychiatric association because basically they didn't work and they were being misinterpreted they were then x explicitly discontinued by the social security administration itself and the social security when or during the short periods of time when she was doing better and and as your honor said the social security administration provides a six factor test for determining the weight to be  given opinion of a physician and the social security administration and this court require that the the they consider those six factors and here the l j did not consider the factors either explicitly or implicitly he violated his agency's own rules and he should be ordered to comply and that's why we are asking that the matter be remanded for the j did not correctly consider the treatment notes he rejected them on the grounds that number one she she is not suicidal or homicidal or suffering from psychosis or who lose to loose nation's he also rather an overstatement what that's what the that is definitely what he said was during his meaning dr drew examination of the claimant most of her mental at page twenty eight of the record by the way in the treatment no it's hard to live in from august yes those treatment notes were during a period of time which we absolutely agree to those two yes but it's clear from from the proceedings  relieved that he looked at all of them he drew conclusions as to what her mental status was most of the time but the but that is exactly what the treatment notes interpretation not in factual different things a different date the the the notes show periods of lesser illness then followed by plunging down into deeper illness and i think by two thousand and thirteen which was the date of the project the doctor's opinion solely on the grounds that she was not hallucinating or suicidal he did not focus only  on notes from two visits he looked at the whole picture eventually the two visits he mentioned lack of suicidal thoughts but his conclusions were much more the the conclusions zero we would submit are not warranted by the treatment notes themselves that the treatment notes in fact show a woman who is struggling with profound depression by the time she has gotten better and then she got worse and particularly on the by the end of tw thirteen she was in very bad shape and the duty is to determine whether or not she was disabled the question is whether there is substantial evidence and i you know without in any way making light of anything with respect anybody there's a lot of evidence that winston churchill suffered from profound depression from time to time and he still managed to come through during world war two and he had a full time job your honor the fact that there are some remarkable individuals and winston churchill is absolutely a remarkable individual who are able to work despite crippling depression does not mean that mrs struggle is capable of working despite crippling depression and for it is whether there is substantial evidence to justify the a l j in disagreeing with the treating physicians assessment that's  all and we would submit that a careful reading of the treatment notes as described in the brief itself would show that there was not substantial evidence to disagree with the opinion of the treating physician and that in fact the ael j partially accepted it because he said she was limited to following simple instructions although he later on then abandoned that conclusion and said ah she can she can do anything even a complicated good morning my name is candace appleton and i'm an assistant u s attorney in the eastern district of new york and i'm here representing the commissioner of social security basically mistrial was a younger individual on the date she  unable to pressure to do any work whatsoever she has two years of college she worked as an office manager for fourteen years notably stopping work in two thousand and eight not because of her impairments but because the office closed the l g j did find the depression was severe and incorporated into his r f c finding that she could not perform any high production or quote of work and would be off task for no more than five percent of the workday she put this into a hypothetical to the ve and the ve found that she could in fact do her past work as an administrative assistant interestingly enough the l j went a bit further and also made a possible step five finding saying that under the medical vocational guidelines given her young age her college to two years of college her light or a c that there was other work other light unskilled work in the national economy that she could perform despite many arguments many of which were raised for the first time before this court she had a very competent social security attorney representing her at the hearing she had a very competent attorney representing her at the district court and none of these issues were raised although we did address them and i feel we can prevail on all of them her major argument is that the l j did not give controlling weight to her psychiatry however as we know in order to get weight it will only be given away if it is well supported by medically except benefits in two thousand and eight she received no psychiatric treatment between two thousand and seven and two thousand and twelve when she applied for s s i and s s d and her first appointment was the month after she applied for benefits she did get psychiatric treatment interestingly enough for depression in two thousand and two two thousand and four to two thousand and five and she continued to work at her draw obviously successfully  as administrative assistant office so the concept of the sick or illness running her unable to do her job just does not pass muster some a host of dr drones notes from the time period while she was working are very similar to her his findings during the time period that is under examination here it is important to note that speaking of sift it all some time she was in worse shape because dr specifically that she was not taking her psychiatric medication on several occasions during the relevant time period and this was a pattern that was repeated push she did have between two thousand and four and two thousand and five and th regular and continuing basis not only was dr drones opinions contrary to his own examination findings they were contrary to the findings of dr flock and the fact that recognize that dr drummond was a psychiatry must i think you recognise that i think you knew that he had treated her for a long time and i think you went successfully through the other characteristics of treating physician he found in consistencies he looked at her treatment he looked at the fact that she very often are certain would not take her psychotropic depressive medication and those were the times when in fact her complaints were worse but overall the examination findings were not that and i found it very interesting that judge const in particular was so impressed and i feel i seeing the treatment notes that he tried of them i don't think i've ever seen that done by a federal court judge and it was persuasive to look at that way she was a basket case she told the doctors she was able to clean shop do laundry cook drive an automobile take public transportation socialize good morning internet manage her finances she had a boyfriend and she cared for her son and her nephew taking them to school and product classes overall clearly i would say dr drones opinions do not deserve weight we have others opinions on the evidence that show that she could in fact perform her past work and if she could not perform past work there was other work in the national economy that she could perform that's not the fact here mrs stella was out of treatment after when she lost her job she went into a severe depression and then into two thousand and ten she resumed psychiatric treatment two years later in two thousand and twelve she applied for benefits so that it's simply not appropriate to say that she went back into treatment because she wanted to bolster her application with regard to issues not raised below as the court is aware  the court ordered it to be represented by pro bono counsel and specifically identified for issues that war to be briefed a whether or not the government is now saying that those issues were raised below our reply brief shows exactly where the issues were briefed below but this court as has spoken and has found these issues to be important  the with regard to miss whether or not miss a stellar was taking her medication the administrative law judge did not find that she was not disabled because she wasn't taking her medication if an administrative law judge is asked to make such a finding there is a very very careful procedure that the administrative la must must follow before determining that a person is not disabled because of failing to take medication and in fact that the treatment notes don't do not show that miss a stellar continue shows that she was being prescribed medication there is no indication that she wasn't taking it in fact that the doctor said continue taking the medication she was based on his that that the case be remanded so that there can be a serious consideration not only of her mental illness but also the combination of her mental illness the carpal tunnel which the administrative law judge said limits her ability to do fine manipulation and her her back problems which limit her ability to sit stand walk lift