there is more to it than that the treating physicians were not properly credited and in fact there was no contract no substantial evidence contradicting those treating physician opinions  specific or legitimate reason it was given that is indeed the case is that there were not specific illegitimate reasons given here particularly in connection with her treating psychiatrist here the ael j and it's an l j and i don't think it's consistent with the record in some vague and well the government seems to concede that there was an error you know in not using that  lso did not address at all the on and that is particularly significant in this case because that was she had surgery for it and it was found to be unsuccessful surgery so you don't send somebody back in to repeat a surgery that already hasn't worked she you know there may be some argument that the commissioner could make that as to the carpal tunnel syndrome that that was successful but  extensive but no memory serves i think it is page thirty one of the thirteen different medications that she was taking what they were being taken for and all of a large portion of those are ones ever side effects and you know eventually they settled on something but she fun you know at the end of the day she has oral and personality disorder and to the extent she's able to do anything she's work environment successfully she will do that stress due to the nature of her personality she's going to miss three dollars to four dollars days every month which vocational expert tells us makes an possible for her to go forward and they listen to her description of her mental sentence they examined her they provided treatment and no adjusted treatment rob period and made certain diagnoses but almost all th makes that if the appeals council indicated would have been sufficient to change the decision doesn't that part of the record we consider well they didn't they didn't e perform unskilled work the extreme limitations are not supported by the claim it's mostly by a mental status examinations of conservative treatment moreover he's not a mental health professional so we know he's wrong on a mental health professional right and the other justification is just kind of bad without any specifics the record doesn't support it well i think your earlier there was   treatment for someone with a mental impairment here we had somebody who  of the brief and i just didn't understand that i've been listening to these cases for quite a few years i still don't understand the argument that if the o j fails to do something we can go ahead and substitute for the oh well i will she also had post traumatic stress disorder diagnosis borderline personality disorder a pain in the elbow pain in the right and there is evidence offered on that was that ever discussed in the well again it's i don't say there's no obligations name t what she was alleging that the globe and show that she was more limited and went through the record on then she what she cooks one meal a day she goes to the grocery store once a month for about forty minutes because she can't read otherwise she doesn't know they are in garden doesn't go to church doesn't go to movies or camping or bowling or golf or has no hobbies has before hand but it should be remembered and i would point the court to our experts of record at forty dollars forty one cents you are talking about a woman who is cutting herself to release demons and pain and treatment is ongoing inconsistent she's been uncared from since two thousand and thirteen in care but this started for a number of years all of that all of that is relevant all of that is properly considered by this court the i do appreciate that the court is hesitant to issue a decision which would call for an immediate payment of benefits but given what the president is here i