the first error pertains to ms luther's v a disability rating this letter was afforded a one hundred percent v a disability rating effective in december two thousand and twelve the basis of that rating was one hundred percent attributed to post traumatic stress disorder and that was due to military sexual trauma she was granted an additional thirty percent for a genital urinary impairment and she was granted an additional ten percent due to a service connected back injury within the administrate stent do you think that the appeals council discussion of the disability rating cures any concern that you've raised with regard to the adequacy of the jays consideration of the v a rating it's our contention that the appeals council's refutation of the rating actually has no merit here and really no place here because unfortunately in addition what the appeals counsel said was also insufficient to really evaluate the v a rating because as as i indicated the v a rating has three major components not only the p t s d due to military sexual trauma but also the genital urinary impairment and that's an impairment that the l j entirely missed she was aware of it because at the time of the hearing prior administrative counsel told the l j that in fact there was a severe rating it was one hundred percent p t s d thirty percent genital urinary and ten percent back impairment but on the record the l j said one hundred percent v a disability rating has no bearing it's something we consider so it's apparent from the record that unfortunately the  doesn't matter what to being said that's exactly what she said that that was exactly the sentiment that was on the record again i wasn't there so i don't really know because i can only glean the context from the transcript but the takeaway is she did not understand what the purpose of the v a disability rating is in the social security context and in fact that the legal stand it is ordinarily and must grant that the rating great weight less persuasive specific valid reasons that are supported by of of the v a disability rating is in the file it's at exhibit twelve the the administrative law judges decision and within that document it specifies exactly what the v a considered in a riving at the v a rating decision when there's some additional paperwork that came before the appeals council yes it was before the yeah you see my three pages right precisely three pages were missing however the part of the of the brady that specified he at the v a yes and he not only works at one v a he's actually the treating psychologist for veterans suffering from p t s d all of his state you can kind of clean that from his letterhead but oh  absolutely so in terms of evaluating his opinion there are no better position to do with in the sale today and probably never heard before certainly and certainly the day is going to be in a much better position to evaluate military sexual trauma and the impact that that's going to have on functional limitations in the workplace than an a l j who did not even reference the fact that the p t s d was due to military sexual trauma in evaluating dr  unfortunately the administrative law judge did not note the fact that he was highly specialized did not acknowledge how many times dr flynn had actually treated ms luther as many times how to treat her that is somewhat up for debate but how it's still somewhat up for debate it's somewhat up for debate because on a medical store statement you may see on the first page it says treated her for eighteen months and it's hard to tell if it says two visits or twenty visits presumably it's twenty because even if he didn't treat her twenty times he probably reviewed the records from mr period because the two of them were acting in conjunction to treatments there there's no twenty pages of record right but but even if he had only treated her two times because of his specialization because of the fact that he is more highly skilled in dealing with the trends and also there psychiatric needs he should have been given deference he should have been given weight as a treatment physician what we do w veterans administration is diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder two this is salt i believe this is a lot of us lucid received psychotherapy through the veterans administration and two paragraphs later he says miss luthor is currently temporary partially disabled psychiatrically she is barely in category and i'm not sure what barely in this category means is she just barely temporarily disabled or is or is she on the verge of being permanently disabled it is that she's about to move out of out of partially disabled into permanently horrific abuse and so that was the basis of the worker's compensation claim so dr goodman may have been struggling with how much of the disability do i attribute to her childhood abuse her veteran abuse and also to this worker compensation if you have it all he has to do is just get to just get to the point of saying p t s d whatever the source is whether it's attributable to the v a service or not that might have been the restriction on doctor flip a certain not a restriction on doctor goodman no and he says she's in need of psychological and psychiatric treatment reach maximum medical improvement so it's it would i mean the most discerning review we have in the record is dr goodman and he doesn't seem to be willing to give full deference to the v a s findings on this he seems somewhat skeptical he may not have had the benefit of dr flynn slater medical source that meant as well as the ship uro's later statement that she had as well which would show that many years many years later at least a year and a half later she was if i don't i don't know quite what good it would have done him to have had the report we have from dr flynn because it's really just very conclusory that the check the boxes is really not a very helpful thing although doctor dr fl say he does make some comments on the medical sources even and also the records underlying his initial visit with ms lou there were within the were within the administrator i have fairly yes yes and at that time he noted that during the interview with her she was distraught dissociating when she was discussing the traumatic events that she had witnessed so you know what one thing that we can say about each of the psychiatric or psychological medical opinion that are within this file they all intersect someplace they all intersect to say that she had a poor prognosis dr gigi r o who the administrative law judge credited who has a complicated exam in position in this case she said that the likelihood that ms luther would recover from p t s d was poor additionally she noted that she would have difficulty with stress in the workplace she would have difficulty attending a regular work week or regular workday that's significant it's also significant because although the administrative law judge credited that opinion she did not incorporate those particular limitations into her residual functional capacity i think she says is that the that  stated that what she was basing it upon was what she observed during the time she examined mr pirro and she's perfectly within her right to make statements about the severity of ms list or some parents along with her functional limitations i see my time its not of if the l g had simply ignored it rather that the a l j did what was supposed to do which is a review of the medical records and here i don't think claimant can reasonably argue that there was any prejudicial error because the records of the l reviewed included not only the record before the v a but it also included an additional time period that was after including to the state agent and include state agency opinions consult he had he she knew who i really had a role supervising but he knew that she'd been seen at the v a regularly for quite a while but there isn't any state and there isn't any treatment records that would  i don't know for how long your two i don't know how long here is since two thousand and ten is what rights are really long time and if you if you are to just count a therapist opinions for being based on the subject of self reporting then none of them are worth anything ever i think you have to look at well under that agency's regulations you know not only have to look at the doctor reporting but you have to also look at the medical records and the treatment records to corroborate those types of two i believe it was because a change in age category that claim and has not even identified those records so it's unclear where she's getting these so a statement that again this is somebody who's seen her every two weeks for years and they did believe a believe that the elder looked at the record as a whole considered all of the statements from the several doctors and if you look at the different psychiatric evaluations i mean if even if you look at doctor for the statement on page four fifty one  i just want to rebut and say that no reason is not a persuasive specific valid reason supported by the record and l j did not give any reason here additionally under the garrison criteria we believe that any of the three sources of  the insufficiently credited evidence were credited ms luthor would be entitled to a finding of disability there can be no serious doubts that she's disabled two separate federal agencies have now found her disabled both the v a as well as social security ministration thank