since june two thousand and eight due to the combined functional effects of several mental impairment she was evaluated by three psychologist dr hakki dr bose and dr wingate all of whom opined that she has many mental functional limitations aired by improperly rejecting all of these opinions in this case i think the most important in the biggest error here involves the handling of the opinions of mean very severely impaired memory and then he'll basically opine that she couldn't work dr bose evaluated her twice and noted many clinical findings that support her opinions which were basically disabling opinions opinions that she had so many and mark impairments that it's quite obvious that would prevent somebody from sustaining employment so i'm going to circle bose they only give two reasons for rejecting dr bose opinion and neither of those reasons withstand any kind of scrutiny the st reason being supposedly she was unaware of macleod's marijuana use but this was something she had discussed in both of her evaluations and the other reason was that she had to according to dale jr relied too much on the claimants less than credible complain twenty four i couldn't tell from the rest of you can you explain to me whether that's going in a good direction or a bad direction doesn't show that it's twenty four more severe or less of the air in twenty three for a minute wettest exam twenty four is less severe but neither of those tell the whole story because a lot of the observations that dr bose recorded in which i discussed in my brief are not things that necessarily  go into that thirty point many models mental status exam score there can be people with a fully score thirty which is flawless and yet they can still have a problem with that just aren't actually one piece of evidence here that is that is fully within the control of the claimant so the back to pressure the inventory is a question there is a given to that and they just most relevant objective observations by dr bose so what accounts of the difference between two thousand and fourteen and two thank you well the difference once again i think the difference between those two years is very significant few look at once again the matter of mental math mental status examination that one point score difference is not a dim meaningful difference and in fact in two thousand and fifteen she rated her as being more severely impaired and it's once again it's based on the observation that she described of the things she actually saw in looking at  objective measures seem to be going one way better but then her st her opinion was that it's more severe so doesn't that support dale j's conclusion you know we got that because there really wasn't it wasn't like bowles opinion the l j really focused heavily it appears to me on the inconsistency east between the objective testing and her role reporting so you know i think that as you pointed out there's conflicting opinions here i'm going to get dr both opinion let's wait because these in consistencies where knowledge by doctors gilbert and nelson but not acknowledged by dr both so how would you respond to that well once again i think it boils down to the many clinical observations she reported and the other doctors of course have never met macleod they never they never talk to or they've done all they've done is required it and read all of those options many clinical observations describing all these problems then the state agency non examiners would have more of a basis for saying well we've seen a consistency here they don't explain how all those many clinical observations are inconsistent with her opinion they're actually fully consistent with indian and the last i want to point out is that dr happy is test results showing memory in the  treatment and the fact that because the same inconsistency is likewise undermined the lay witness statements as well as dr both depend have i'd like to briefly just a cloud subject of complaints before moving together issues was living alone but i think months she said she was living with and we and that's because her husband do the shopping which suggests that she is living with her husband and subsequent evidence also demonstrates that she's living with her husband and kept including evidence from sidewalk which appears to be a social service organization that was helping her and her husband in two thousand and thirteen when she applied accept housing they are they are the pointy macleod truman history including her days or a particular doctor's partial reliance on reports is not in and of itself an adequate basis for rejecting the doctor's testimony so why isn't that error in this at the opinions it's important to evaluate whether the very there is a caroline between the severity of the effect on the patients and then by evidence in the opinion versus the severity of the effect limitations and the reports of the claim so for example in this boys public places can't get along with others can only get along quote for a minute if she can get long or for example macaques report that she hadn't been living with her husband for eighteen months because move variability when that simply  oh thank you no go ahead go ahead and finish well i will close by stating that because the l g a findings are supported by actual evidence of courtship thank you thank you very much we don't know what it was about we don't know if it was maybe it was about the past use of drugs and we don't know exactly what she was there is definitely something that it but we don't know what it is that's part of the reason i am not and i have she did reported her observations of how dysfunctional the crowd was in that room that is totally consistent through this record and of and i didn't mention this audio but live evidence is also consistent with with on the briefs and directed the next case up the argument is lavender this is all