good morning learning may please the court i'm robert weems and the attorney for ms cheney this case is a social security applicant with severe mental impairments at issue in this case we think fundamentally and most essentially it's a failure of the misfit of law judge to take into consideration and to properly weigh the opinion evidence provided by ms cases social workers what that opinion evidence shows which is is that ms chase does not have the ability to conform her behaviors in a structured setting whether that's a word and you're referring here i take it to the crack reports yes you're the first and i'm one of their stand your training in that area and said i don't think it shows the requisite disability because it shows somebody reacting emotionally to having their children removed in a difficult a mastic situation right or wrong first time she was in hell but is your definition of germane what you wanted to hear that you know you argue that your main reasons were not given but the l j did provide reasons namely that miscreants findings were situational to things particularly problematic here and i think troubling is that they seem to put particular emphasis on this idea that the drug use was responsible and as the l g m self acknowledged there was no medical evidence of that and in fact what we have what is not uncommon with somebody with bipolar disorder and extreme depressive disorders is that you get these core currents and people are trying to self medicate now we have absolute evidence in this  chase was highly motivated to seek reunification and under those circumstances highly motivated she was not able to conform behaviors and while there is some evidence of failed drug testing she also was on different medications and so it's i think there would be an issue there but i'm not asking for a wedding but also what was going on and why she was getting thrown out of the linear sequential forgotten argument so i'm sorry to interrupt  rejecting and what the lay opinion testimony in the caller has emphasized over and over again is particularly important for is for developing evidence and showing how the particular mental disability that someone is giving us an absolutely unique view into how the systems are how the impairment affects a claimant's ability to work because she's talking about someone who's highly motivated and remember we're talking about loose change miss chase is not for the first time in this situation she has three children that are already out in foster care that and we're talking five children that she has multiple different partners three of them it's sort of like if you have five children it's not as bad if one dies you know and the fact that she's already lost the race that she should be used to going to court losing her children it's not a matter of losing your children a is in a situation which is trying to assist her and i do think that this is not an antagonistic relationship necessarily that we're talking about news cripe is reporting back and his wife is reporting back among other things that she thinks reasons for disc well then the reasons are germane you're saying they're wrong well i think in light of the courts in light of the president of the court they're not germane reasons it is saying she is a social worker and on acceptable medical sources not at your main reason for discrediting her and that seems to be one of the things that the algae did but a problem in the end is don't you have to take from the cry purport some evidence of disability for it to help you know what do we have to do we have an examining physician who says mr chase is able to perform simple tasks follow instructions and get along with others in the work so there's evidence on the government's side that you that your client's not disabled you've got some procedural issues with it and we have a social worker says she exploded to make it to make it sort of shorthand on an occasion or two when i was with her how does that but what you describe is what people do all the time when they're looking at the you know various pieces of evidence they decide what's more germane what they're going to give more weight to or not the function so you know it's sort of like you're saying well it's not germane if you give last way to that it's situational and that it's has to do with child work i mean child custody well let's say i introduce a dental report you know i'm trying to and i had anxiety at the dentist and my disability is that i have anxiety going to work and i have agoraphobia or whatever well avail jacob look at that and say well a lot of people have anxiety at the dentist when you're about to get that and so i don't consider that as relevant as someone that tested them for you know in other situations so you know saying that's not germane is to me you know i'm saying that people can look at these things do think even in that first cripe report i believe is reference to miss chase being thrown out of her treatment programs and that she's being thrown out of the treatment programs not for noncompliance with drug treatment but for getting cations with other patients and being otherwise known to actually address a separate issue that travels from the a l j kept the record open in order to psychological evaluation and your client failed to show up twice to psychological to schedule psychological evaluation what are we to make of that in this case doesn't that isn't that not make it difficult for you to  a complete job in this case i certainly hope not but what i would say is you are talking and the courts have recognized and this court has recognized that somebody who has mental impairments and severe mental impairments which have been identified here should not be penalized for things that are consistent no i understand but we're contending in this case is that the l j erred by not considering some or that he just recorded more accurately not considering some very late submitted evidence and the alj a said gee you want to get in more evidence about the psychological state the state of your client how scheduled evaluation your client doesn't show up under those circumstances are we really required to to consider late submitted evidence that that for so much of the evidence get you there buddy but that's not the issue required under those circumstances to consider this late submitted evidence as if it were for the  think it is appropriate i think it is at least as appropriate for to be considered for remember back to the l j if nothing else we do have someone with a mental impairment the reasons that she gave one is absolutely can one was oversleeping which is absolutely consistent that that would be one of the side effects that was noted by her perscribe psychiatrists that excessive sleepiness things like that from the medication she was taking the other was that she was in a court mandated rehabilitation program she was not free to leave that program in order to go in to social security evaluation that would have put her in violation of any terms of  wik analysis so i think she gave good reasons why one a much stronger than the other but two good reasons why i am bolt that were related to the impairment that she suffers from  so i do think that it should not preclude her and certainly in light of the purposes of the social security act it is absolutely appropriate that we indulge every  compliance situations are absolutely consistent with the medical illnesses that she has a psychiatric illnesses that would be expected she did eventually get and she did get assessed and those assessments do show that she has borderline personality borderline intelligence and things of that sort which are all very important particularly in light of her testifying that she had been a registered nurse when we look at the actual employment history and things of that sort we  she did overreact but that was that was relevant to the people proceeding and the fact remains that the remainder of the medical record which is the claimant has to prove up her disability case with medical evidence and the remainder of the medical out whether there was waiver or not very good to figuring out what this report says and what it what consideration it should have been given so help me with it what is it from a doctor we don't really know i think it's illegible it looks like it says it's a psychiatry but the doctor's name is bill and to this date plaintiff is on it been unable to actually identify who the source is you do you do agree that it was appropriately before the district court that it was appropriately before this right court even though it wasn't it was it was in the record was not properly raises an issue you know i does it your waiver argument i'm just saying it was in the record right it was in the record and therefore had she properly raised it as an issue the district court should have could have considered would have considered the ok she had raised ok so let's assume let's assume for a second that it's appropriate in front of the district court the district court should have considered it did trigger consider well the district court did not articulate any  she thought was the the problems with the case she didn't she didn't raise the counsel evidence which is what that questionnaire consists of so the district court did not specifically i guess address what way they were case no because the evidence has to have consistency with the record to have weight and it has to have objective support either on this form or somewhere else in the record commission's regulations state primary sources but you know you're looking at the the treatment records which are as dr tom in the pathways to wellness and so all those clinical he's doing fairly well are described as being cooperative there's never any kind of outlandish behavior documented anywhere in the l medications the record with her interactions with the staff at her physician's office is still relatively normalise they still describe her cooperated she may be combative she describes it she's feeling more anxious can you help us out with this report it's got a cover sheet that says requirement now submitted additional information of a psyche val but there's no indication on the psyche about who did it  sometimes you call the jones report your brief sometimes you call it the brown report what is  a burden i mean no one would want us to decide cases on a bass gas if that were the other side's evidence you would be screaming at the top of your lungs at the top of my lungs that should come in and scream at the top of my lungs that it should come in because it's clearly a government document it was clearly prepared by the agency and it adds and it is significant by which  agency by the social security has the i think it's a disability determination services is my guess i know we know that there's a letterhead right now we're back to that guesswork again though i am looking at i know it's tough when you the end of it this is a signature patient signature by your client so i'm wondering whether or not this just isn't a form your client's filled out to send somebody i've provided the best information i've been able to yeah and i appreciate your dilemma and it is unfortunate and particularly when we're trying to get information from the state agencies in connection with something which is like perceiving it becomes exceptionally difficult because of the confidentiality issues to actually  get things for legal and social security doesn't seem to have much better luck you know we do have what we believe it to be and presented that to the best of our ability based on this and this matter will stand submitted