honor thank you my name friend of forbes i represent the social security disability claimant or the f a lot the standard of review is substantial evidence and whether or not proper legal criteria are met so that the shock three barnhart in a wealth of other cases your honor in this case substantial evidence does not support the decision because key support limitations have been left out of the r f c and those limitations are harmful and also what it set puts at that's what i was asking you have been left out of what the residual functional good has you might use words that would your on the nd reason that the substantial evidence standard is not met is because we have a treating physician specialist opinion in the record which supports limitations that work for closely and this case is one of several cases that have come through this court also the crump case the exception case law which is recent and mostly argued in non trust the dental opinions but that the main case i believe is just  algaes decision then claim it loses i argued the crump case this i believe this case is very similar to that and a comparison of the two  should lead to the same result and that is a decision in favor of the disability claimant this case in one sense it's stronger than the crump because we do have p opinions and those position opinions do cover limitations that are important work the month expected to fail to complete the task in a timely manner for one or more hours of an eight hour workday on a chronic basis those are specific limitations by the treating specialist who specialist with a long history then he got nine examining consultants at the bottom you can't throw the guy up at the top out if if the if the t more acronyms understood the rules pertaining to moderate limitations and concentration persistence or pace are not static as mr kuykendall would leave this court to believe this court has held that no magic words are needed to accommodate moderate limitations as god's persistence or pace instead an l j must look to the evidence in each case indeed this court has held that even generic limitations such as limiting a claim to simple repetitive tasks may properly accommodate moderate limitations and concentration persistence or pace as long as they adequately account for the claimants demonstrated psychological symptoms found in the record in this case the l g s r f c residual functional capacity determination sufficiently addressed how mr guy can dolls moderate limitations and concentration persistence or pace affected his ability to stay on task and the evidentiary record did not warrant limitations exceeding those contained in the old days i put the tickles of the vocational expert with little to no actual evidence of limitations mr marks now indicated that mr kuykendall is memory was intact in all areas similarly a consultative physician observed that mr carville's memory for recent and remote medical events was preserved and his intellectual function was grossly normal a consultative psychologist dr hershberger similarly noted that mr cochrane dolls attention and concentration appeared fair to good and his stream of oriented times three had fair reason and remote memory and appeared to be of average intellect to l j the mystery of law judge was explicit in his rationale at step three the mystery of law judge noted that kuykendall handled his own medical care it ministered his own medications took care of his ailing mother took her to appointments he was able to use a seep out machine and drove a car he was able to provide a detailed history of his impairments and numerous medications he followed simple instructions at an examination and he was able to understand and follow home exercise programs and medication information oaklawn mental health care providers generally noted that is attention and concentration were within normal limits in his decision the administrative law judge specifically indicated that he limited m simple routine work tasks because of his difficulty with understanding remembering and carrying out detailed instructions the ministry of law judge also limited him to simple work related decisions in an effort to avoid stress anger and irritability towards others accordingly your honour's the o j limited mr kuykendall to simple routine work tasks with simple work related decisions they'll find was also fully consistent with the state agency psychologists who reviewed the records at the initial and reconsideration levels of recent cases from this court support arguments today in joe's effect which counsel referred to the art a residual functional capacity assessment in that case plus for simple routine repetitive tasks requiring no more than occasional contact with supervisors and coworkers no contact with the public and assigned work area least ten to fifteen feet away from coworkers and this was in conjunction with moderate limitations and concentration present this court saw no error in the administrative law judges residual functional capacity assessment because she considered all the limitations that were supported d by the record evidence similarly and signers of this court stated that the claimant never once has told us what other restrictions the administrative law judge should have included in  lucy the court found that the l g properly tied the residual functional capacity to the evidence in the record by limiting him to simple routine and repetitive tasks and simple work related decisions with occasional interaction with others and finally and or monica the court stated that even generic limitations such as limiting a claimant a simple repetitive tasks may properly account for moderate limitations and concentration persistence or pace as long as they adequately account for the climate's demonstrated psychological some these cases your honour's provide examples of this court's refusal to apply a categorical rule in every concentration persistence and pace case because this case is distinct with an evidentiary record that diverge is from a typical concentration persistence pace case different rule should apply respectfully your honour's mr kuykendall is the biggest hurdle in this case and involves his inability to answer a basic question exactly right we have here as in so many of these cases a contention by the claimant that it must have been in error for the a o j to rule for the secretary well a commission and a contention by the commissioner th would have been legal error to rule for the claimant as if there were no set of cases in which the a o j actually had a decision to make this was like a case where the o j had a real decision to make absolutely and claim it's not exactly healthy no absolutely not they are p r contention judges wrote is that substantial evidence or it's what the o j did you're right but what you were saying on your feet is that there's no evidence in support of the claima offered no concrete explanation for his conclusions beyond simply stating that mr caica law having all had depression or emotional difficulties now while this may be true the mere fact that mr cracknell had such conditions and we do not dispute that he did fails to support the conclusion that he would miss multiple days of work per month or be limited in his ability to work with others as noted above during his consultative examination with dr dwyer mr kuykendall indicated that he experienced anxiety symptoms at times but he admitted that those symptoms only lasted a few seconds before resolving when dr hershberger asked mr cochrane all about his symptoms mr cochrane all reported worrying about diagnosis now the administrative law judge did not agree with that found that the evidence did support such a in conclusion you're ours we would ask that you find that this decision was supported by substantial evidence and we that it does have as a a zone where they can weigh the evidence and reach a decision on either side but in this case there are parameters on how to weigh that evidence because the old treating physician rule applies and the parameters are that you better have a really darn good reason to throw out a fit a treating specialist as we have here who has a long history the only significant evidence i think the other side has is that sometimes that training specialists mentions that he concentrates during  sessions but that's within the therapeutic environment and those sessions usually were fifteen minutes at one time with one or sixty minutes that is not evidence substantial evidence that a person can concentrate in a two hour increments required for unskilled work and then finally routine and simple instructions and task are primarily related to cognitive problems that's why we have the year and crump case law because cognitive problems cognitive deficiencies do not take into account almost always the ability to sustain the concentration persistence or pace throughout a work day day after day so the evidence is here it is about as good as it gets for a claimant of a treating specialist with a long treatment history issuing opinion like the one here