interpretative the impact of somebody and somebody being notably distractable avoids leaving the house minimal tolerance for stress emotionally and easily eighty you're asking or saying that the a should have put more emphasis on it doctor lee gave a statement that he thought your client was totally disabled but what underlying isolated d she ends up with her hospitalization in february two thousand and thirteen she ends up with a hospitalization two thousand and sixteen there this that's a tally the circumstances indicate that this is an individual who is the same reference in the may two thousand and thirteen so to oh yes looking in your briefs for some on this issue of missing records for some discussion of the role of ms center field reversible error we would ordinarily treat that kind of thing as an invited error certainly seems to put the agency in simply of a trick day where heads we win tails we get to do it all his analysis of the opinion in terms of support ability and consistency and when he does his analysis of the r f c when he does those he's gonna see wait a minute there's all these references records a missing us flag goes up and how we can only be expected to do more mister satterfield when ms harris his lawyer represented twice to him that the record was complete because and as i think i was you look at what judges supposed to do when they weigh opinion it's they're looking for consistency they're looking for support ability how are they going to properly way that when they come across this evidence and clearly see that they're missing that they're missing critical of us it and so it's not so much a burden as opposed to i'm here to weigh the evidence and it's clearly of her other arguments rely upon this assertion that the record is incomplete but for this allegation to rise to the level of reversible error harris has the burden of proving four states one that there are in fact meaning that harris has been prejudiced by their own mission and for that she had a good reason for not producing the records now charisse is failed to meet her on all four points we don't even know sitting here today think somebody else may have put it on there i've presumably these documents went through harris's attorney it's it's not something that was asked at the hearing who put that on there but even if we assume it was written by doctor lee that doesn't mean that it necessarily follows that the a l j here acted reasonably in rely on councils represent he should that we had everything we that there was no reason for delay here is now arguing before this court today that these missing records allegedly quote show that  harris's treatment wasn't working we don't know that we don't have the records and if counsel knows that why hasn't he produced the records keris also attempts to rely on that that supports her case but now most says that mere conjecture that issue no records will change the outcome is not enough and conjecture is all we have here there are also important policy complete it was also harris who was in the best position to obtain she didn't do so and she hasn't explained why she didn't do so or detail any efforts over the many years of litigation at this point to tina's records additional me the record as it currently exists strongly suggests that it is not records would not change the outcome here we've got the hospitalization for suicidal ideation doctor lee's said that harris was under a lot of stress to the family circumstances but her thought process ease and perception were intact and she was we are not left completely in the dark as to harris's function that we had the notes from her treating physician doctor flynn doctor flynn was normally on a regular basis conducting  examinations and his treatment findings did not reflect extreme symptoms harris had a depressed mood at times she had moderately impaired insight into her own problems but she wasn't suicidal she had appropriate demeanor she eighteen normal speech and she generally had normal thoughts and perceptions so these notes from doctor flynn suggest that additional notes from doctors wouldn't change the outcome turning to the nd category of allegedly missing documents those from her sister ally two thousand and sixteen hospitalization there's even less reason to believe that any additional documents from that have period to see outcomes h recorded fully normal mental status examinations up until the april two thousand eight hundred a l j hearing so rather than striking out on his own and interpret the medical evidence i am self discontinued that so here's this bill that multiple or specs with respect to her claim about the record i'm trying briefly to here says points about the state agency consulting psychologists doctor merritt dr rosenfeld her challenge to the consideration of these opinions presupposes that there is some sort of presumption this state agency consultants don't review all the records provided to that there's no such presumption and such a presumption would not be consistent with the deferential substantial evidence standard both sides proudest were given the given the full or court which they found very persuasive and essentially here is that trying to turn the burden nonce head and shift the burden to the a ok to disprove the existence of mental limitations and that's not how the board works she also argues well we can't rely on their opinions because this twenty six thousand hospitalizations post opinions of the state agency consultants but again under this court's precedents it's only if there is new significant medical evidence that changed the picture so much that we would expect that it changed the state agency and doctor lauer that it was no more than an adverse reaction to medication and that it would have quote totally resolved within two months if there's no further questions from the court i rely on commission commissioner's briefing and ask the court to aff