please the court scott miller on behalf of juneau perry dale jr gave his analysis of the opinion of treating psychiatry iscar halfway down page twenty three of the record when he stated i give little weight to the opinion of dr car as the sum of the evidence demonstrates that the claimant has greater abilities than those a pint that in essence is the entirety of the analysis of that particular exhibit which was a medical source data and from dr karr the other ripping it evidence from dr car page for ninety three of the record they'll jay was under the mistaken impression that it was a medical source that meant only from a social worker and did not recognize that this was the opinion of dr car but they'll be focused only on a portion of the document and never at any time addressed the statements on page four ninety two of the record wherein dr carr indicated the claimant has significant anxiety and depression that impairs her ability to function effectively so in our physician suggested that he would not your honor the later one is on a different form which is used by the commissioner and on page four ninety three it contains check boxes that are really not specific it says it gives examples of situations but under social interaction dr kerryn decatur that the claim was limited had significant anxiety regarding social situations but importantly on the page before that same document on page four ninety two of the record when asked for the specific medical opinion about work related mental activities that's where dr carr wrote that the claim has significant anxiety that impair her ability to function effectively and the question posed was work related mental activities what is the conclusion that the car in that later document gives with respect to capacity  iran of the form is simply not clear of the two the quote i just read to you is from the second document where he's indicating that it impairs her ability to function effectively so in our view dr carr was continuing to indicate that the claim had significant functional limitations turning to the question of substantial evidence they all day gave significant weight to the opinion of a doctor blackwell who never examined perry perhaps most importantly the record is clear that dr blackwell only reviewed six pages of mental health records which was the consultative examination from dr moore dr blackwell never had access to the treatment notes from dr car either opinion from dr karr the treatment notes from error because dr black will not examine did not rely on a very early statement by dr war and nothing more and that that giving substantial weight to that was error the question is is that error sufficiently futile in view of later statement by the treating physician so that we do not need to remain  other grounds of the ministry of case we have to say if there is an error is sending it back if you tile not just because there is sufficient evidence but because we evidence is so strong that it would come out the same way and that's why i'm focusing on later statement by judge carr and by warning by your honor i think that if you basically we've got to remember that they are jay was viewing substantial evidence but mr miller if you have this case from the beginning i have your honor i would be when did it begin a many years ago begun in twenty twenty a woman your honor on eleven so this is not on the record of course in the record but what's your client's situation  she's been waiting to be hopefully receive these benefits over six years around that no not exactly your honor in fact about two weeks ago i won her case on a new application so she's been found disabled by the commissioner commencing on the january twenty third two thousand and fourteen so we're dealing other point i want to make is that even if as has been suggested the later opinion of dr carr suggested possible improvement what about the prior period before the improvement they all say should have even if opinion because that was error to give that much weight then even if be a o j could have come out the same way because if it was enough evidence to come out that way we don't know whether he would have come out that way and then we have to send it back and ask him to do it and the fact that the risible stanch a limited sumit he could come out that way doesn't get rid of that error if that is error so it is wrong to put it in terms of whether there is substantial evidence in an administrative law case your honor i'd argue two points in response first and say that this court has between we found that not examining consultants such as dr blackwell can be given greater weight than a treating source opinion whereas hair their opinion is yes or it if their basis for beer judgment  is a a valid one then you can give him substantial weight and then the question is is vet so here where he relied on dr morse on a few pages of a very early was opinion was stale quote unquote argue the question isn't fair whether dr blackwell had the full record before him but whether dr black walls opinion is consistent with the record that the ails a viewed as weight that x is it this is one of the major things because obviously some weight can be given to well your honor i think if you look at compare dr blackwell's opinion to the residual functional capacity finding that they'll say did provide hair although they'll do a suggested significant weight to dr blackwell whose opinion was that this peri could perform simple at work activity they'll j found more severe limitations on top of what dr blackall provided and limited miscarry in her ability to deal with stress limited her and her interactions with others in the office limited her to non non supervisor position and as i'd suggest that although they'll g gave significant weight to dr blackwell they'll jay formulated his arm steve overlying also on dr karr's later opinion also on dr moore's assessment also on the treating source notes from dr carr dr two and a social worker warneke and it was not just the l j relying soley on dr blackwell hair and as such this is there would be no error because this is not the l g a simply taking dr blackwell's assessment and using that as the r s v finding and moving on to his doctor cars t with regard to her significant anxiety limitations i contend that they did in fact and properly include those limitations and in his r f c finding via limiting miscarry to both a simple look simple work related stress do you agree or you can test the posing council's statement that the later opinion to color was not that clear about understand remember sustained concentration or persistence and adapt in the workplace where although dr carr did not find an assessment as to her ability to work per se that any such assessment regarding her ability to linear and goal directed thought processes she was able to attend and maintain focus and attention she had unimpaired memory she was cooperative she was also able to at the time take care of a two year old child which i can safely say is not it is a pretty stressful situation having now a child of my own at home but miss perry is as also a high school graduate and she is taking college courses at the entirety of the record supports that she is able to perform some simple gainful work activity with limitations as to her interactions with others as well as her dealing with stressful situations around  blackwell had reviewed eighty percent of the treatment records along with the opinions of the other doctors then perhaps they l j could have reasonably given significant weight to that opinion but in this case six pages  report from dr moore is not enough that any reasonable fact finder could give significant weight to that opinion this is not even close in many cases they review many of the records and that's a different  situation the opinion of dr blackwell was not just stale it was it was almost completely uninformed dr blackwell never saw any of these other treatment records and i would also argue that the l j cherry picked the opinions of dr moore and reserved and we thank you very much well argued by both sides