case and a very simple issue the issue is whether the administrative law judge gave appropriate weight and so security case give appropriate weight to the opinion of the claimant was not represented in this case so there was a heightened duty for the judge to assist the claimant make sure the record was fully developed the decision noted that the claimant was receiving an eighty percent rating  but it did not specifically note that the claimant was found entitled to total disability dude individual unemployability the way the v a does these ratings sometimes the ratings has nothing to do with functional limitations and let's take a look at let's say a lumbar spine really there's two ways that they evaluate lumbar spine ratings and i do a lot of v a cases something in a forty percent rating as for something but there's another category dealing with periods of incapacitation somebody has four or more periods of incapacitat year for extended periods they would be eligible for sixty percent rating so one has three periods of incapacitation they would be eligible for a forty percent rating so that is a medical opinion that is relevant to an issue and so security so if i was representing the claimant at a hearing i might ask the vocational expert to assume the same or of see that the judge gave except three times a year the person would be incapacitated for extended periods maybe twenty three dollars days at a time so they'd be absent from work ten days a year the vocational expert may say that would exceed what is acceptable and in my opinion it would be unable to found that it was outweighed by other evidence that's that's and j a l j b says i haven't given very much weight to the v a decision because it was outweighed by other evidence do you see a difference between those two and if so what's the difference i think you know what's important is the not so much the finding that someone is unemployable but the way they not be able to perform even sedentary work and and that was on page four hundred and forty six of the record and so as a result we find that he's unemployable so i think that's something the judge has to give say i gave great way to that opinion however i don't believe that doctor's opinion is correct or i understand that he got a forty percent rating because he has three periods of incapacitation per year for extended periods and therefore he qualifies for forty percent rating for the spine however i don't find that that's credible i don't give that a lot of weight because the weight from our doctors is different then you started so security gets an abstract of the records from the v a but they need to look at that compensation and pension exam and read that compensation pension exam in say ok i see what this doctor is saying however in two thousand i play a lot better if i did but if the doctor who does the physical examination at the v a and then they interview the veteran and then they say ok in my opinion it's is entitled to a forty percent rating because he meets this criteria the judge looks at that and says i see that i see this other evidence and i'm balancing it i am given a great weight but i still disagree with it then we're you know we lose but if he doesn't look at the record and he doesn't say claimant i think i could have done a really good job for the claimant had the opportunity i want to got that entire v a claims file or i got that compensation examination i was a judge take a look at what happened in two thousand and eight that compensation exam and why they found that the person was limited to less and sedentary work so are you saying that he didn't have the als they didn't have the entire record or simply that they didn't get what you see as appropriate way to the entire record i don't think he had the entire v a record you know they say it was so security sometimes as they get part of the v a record but they don't get the entire record and that would include not only the medical records but the claims file which may include a compensation and pension exam that is not medical treatment it's done for the purpose of evaluating the claimant to determine what percentage rating he should get from the veterans administration so i didn't see that in the record his responsible for getting that phone record to that well that's a good question if if he's represented i make sure it's and i'm going to the attorney make sure it's in the record but he wasn't represented and if a layperson sees or says v a records two thousand and six through two thousand and sixteen he may sue more she may have some that's got it all it may not realize that then they don't have the compensation examine their you know they change the law so the algae have any responsibility to make sure the record is complete yes so do we have is there authority saying that that would be on the l j to get any missing records from the d n a that supported it era and you raise failure to get the whole record as eric because why i understand it is you just disagree with the finding that was made by the l a j to disregard the regulation says that the sole security administration will get all the medical records one year prior to the date of the application so it's it's the judge has the duty to develop the record to claim it has a duty to make sure that the record is is also developed so there's a concurrent well let's suppose for purposes of argument that either there was a had the entire record or because it is the burden of your client to give it whatever he doesn't have is is just not part of the case didn't give appropriate weight because of the records he had because he didn't acknowledge that the person was entitled the total disability did individual an employer billet he the decision they just mentioned the eighty percent rating and i think there was also a misunderstanding i was looking at the polies brief where there was a discussion at the hearing in the claimants and i'm drawing a one hundred percent and there was a discussion with that doesn't mean that  you're employable just because you're drawing a one hundred percent well that's exactly what it means it means that even though you're only rated eighty percent you you've been found to be unemployed so that's number one number two the judge didn't give appropriate weight to the medical opinion that is found in the rating decision it's that it's referred to in the rating decision on page four hundred and forty six dollars that the person is not able to do even sedentary work on a full time basis bouquets and we were just looking at the records that would you have found him disabled i don't think that's the criteria the criteria is the judge follow the correct procedures in determining whether the person is is is disabled  t he have that he did he do what he was supposed to do to get to that decision so just like make sure i understand this so you're come he didn't follow the complete the correct procedures because number one he didn't look at the record that supported the v a s derm determination and number two he didn't consider that one hundred percent disability usage and i didn't give it a great weight and he didn't give it great weight in what respect what the legal system he didn't in the decision instead i gave great way to the determination of the v a that the person was entitle to one hundred percent total disability due to individual unemployability and the rating decision finding that he couldn't do sedentary work instead he said eighty percent is is not relevant to social security and i'm not he didn't say anything about the giving a great weight now i'm unclear i thought along isn't that what your argument is the argument is that that they looked at the medical records i think they have all the medical records what they didn't have and i don't know how important it is because it's referred to in the rating decision on page forty eight or forty six they didn't look at the the opinion of the v a doctor which said that the poor person was limited to less and sedentary work and did not give that opinion great weight now i understand what you're saying about the medical records if yours if you were the l j you may look at that and say i don't think he's the person is limited to less than sudden terry work but that's not the issue with glare from the order therefore it is clear from this statement that the law judge was aware of the b h determination at the point it was on more but he rejected it and things from the record that he was aware of the evidence and i acknowledge that he's eighty percent but i did in the written decision from the judge correct me from wrong i don't think he said i saw the decision from the v a granting him total disability and i'm giving a great way but i'm still going to reject it because not consistent with the objective evidence i think he's noting the eighty percent but not the unemployed billet and just in i think it's inferred it's not explicit that's what i think that the  court order was at the district level as it was you know like he knew about it my name is mark weaver and i represent the apple of the commissioner social security with exceptionally broad latitude the social security yakked in trust fact find to the administrative law judge or l j inherent in following the act and its underlying regulations the commissioner must decide whether a claimant is disabled based on social security law and all the evidence that a claimant presents this case was properly decided because the ail j fully considered the opponent's department of veterans affairs ratings decision along with the other evidence before providing valid reasons for not according that decision with great weight although another governmental agency may determine whether a individual is disabled under its own agency rules such terminations are not  social security commission or in important of this case the commissioner wants this court to know that it was not as a say or the v a that decided the standards for its own disability findings instead that was congress that enact and separate legislation refused to give it great weight on the court for their health that of the a writing decision is not binding on the secretary but it is evidence that should be considered and is intitled to greatly in that case there was a v a rating of one hundred percent disability and this court found that should be more closely scrutinized that decision do you think that great weight is a magic words or carmen or does it mean something else your honor i believe  discounted certain issues of that opinion for the reasons i you know you know below and so it is in this case the important fact is the l j actually considered the a decision  responded correct at the nd oral hearing the opponent again testified he drew one hundred percent disability the l j recognizes that hearing the drawing one hundred percent disability from the v a was not the same as service connected disability noting service connected disability was different from of the a unemployability rating later in that same hearing the opponent acknowledged in his testimony that his combined service connected rating with the v a it was actually the percent if then added that he was paid at the one  the ale jay said and it's a great quote because it spells out the fact of what is at issue in this case l j said we have different very different regulations than the veteran's administration does and this is a transcript forty so we don't use that's always true right everybody nobody's disputing that the criteria are different yes your action is but nevertheless our case all says that great weight has to be given to the v a s determination actually  and l j had instead considered that rating in the decision and correctly explained that a claimant has to meet a more stringent standard to be found disabled under the social security act furthermore  adams v commissioner of social security this court held that an alj it is not here by failing to give the v a disability determination great weight when the l j seriously considered that decision and making his own department of veterans affairs it's set forth the determination that claimant has an eighty percent disability rating l j noted the different standards used between the department of veterans affairs and the social security administration and then the ail j noted that he specifically considered that the v a rating decision included a determination of the claimants eighty percent disability rating however alle j in this case specifically articulated that he quoted the decision little weight due to its inconsistency with the object of medical evidence and the other opinion evidence in the record which reliance what i think that's what we're trying to figure out here is everyone recognizes that the v a decision is not dispositive for the reasons that you've and that your friends at the other tables also recognize there are different standards but what does it mean to give that decision great weight without making it dispositive is do you have to say i give a great only relevant in cases where there's say one hundred percent disability you know that's that's the only mean is the government's position that you know of the a ratings decision should never be forced to give great way  inherent in that waiting scale it is the algaes responsibility to consider all the evidence and facts of the case hand and then actually make the decision of what opinion evidence is consistent with the others in the record indicates only mild objective findings between the previously adjudicated period and the date last insured with significant gaps in treatment and relatively conservative treatment further there is no evidence that surgery was suggested any point the  discussed st of all that in two thousand and twelve there was an entire gap year where the did not seek any treatment moreover during the relevant period objective physical or mental examinations  merits but what i'm trying to figure out is how we describe what weight is supposed to be given to v a determinations obviously assist set aside the the facts of this case how would you case it would be whatever is consistent with the evidence and it's impossible for us to create a you know a categorical rule about which opinion should be given great weight which should be given less because it's impossible to know what word two thousand and seventeen which comes directly on point with this issue and in that changing regulations the commissioner will not provide any analysis about a decision made by any other governmental about whether a claimant is disabled blind employable or entitled to any benefits the commissioner and the rules state that commission change these regulations in part because social security acts purpose and specific  requirements for disability in blindness differ significantly from the purpose and eligibility requirements of other per diem how does that impact this case because it's after obviously the events of this case correct your honor if this case was to be remanded seventeen so almost two years now we are starting to in my office now get some cases that have some two thousand and seventeen regulation changes and effect probably not too long assuming that the claimants argument was properly raised what's your response to his argument that the information that supported the v a s determination of the words underlying evidence was not know so in closing they hear they all j fully consider the opponent's department of veterans affairs rings decision explain the reasons why that determination is not binding on the commissioner  just just very briefly in the decision the judge did find that the claimant was limited to sedentary work with occasional interaction with coworkers and with the public and found that he was capable of sedentary work so if this is not a case where the person he didn't find that the person had severe impairments sedentary work is very limiting what he did say is that he could he could do these these jobs like a document preparer or putting those pieces on and eyeglasses those are there's a handful of sedentary jobs he said he could do the all his finding is not completely different from the be a fun his for the really the fine that's different is if you look at page four hundred and forty six in the rating decision that the th paragraph the the when they when they found him unemployable they they talked about the the opinion from the doctor at the v a that he was limited to less than sedentary work and if you look at the forty percent rating for the for the back impairment that is it could be cause of range of motion but i didn't see that in the record is so the all the only other way he could be at forty percent is periods of incapacitation so if if he was out of work let's say ten days a year some vocational experts would say you can't miss more than six days some would say you miss once a month if he said look i looked at that rating decision and i and i do agree that he's going to miss maybe sixty seven dollars days of work for a month mr vocational expert with that preclude these jobs he said no as well even though i even though the v a found him on employer bill based on our vocational experts testimony and based on my review of the record i think he could do sedentary work on a full time basis acknowledge the v a found him on employable i did give a great weight but the no it's clear and convincing to me that he can do sedentary work on a full time basis and therefore i'm denying it i think that would have been enough but when you're saying he didn't go to the doctor for a year i hear what you're saying but you know and i know that sixty year old me had a back surgery hadn't been to the doctor for a year but it still hurts standing up here  just because you don't go to a doctor doesn't mean you're not hurting it just means that maybe you reached a plateau and you say ok i learned to live with it so the person was limited to sedentary work that didn't nobody saying that did this person didn't have severe problems and they also had other joints i just mentioned the back but there is also ridiculous of the in the knees and mental impairment so it was not just limited to the back i would just used that is an example that's thank you