it leaves the court i'm james clear on behalf of the climate in this case social security case i think it raises the fairly simple question of whether social security a l j can simply tell us that he's complied with the law rather than actually complying with the law the law is clear on the ninth circuit or has been now for at least twenty years that if an l j is to reject the opinion of a medical source or a waste or so the a l j has to number one say that's what he's doing and number two give reasons appropriate for the circumstances for doing that in the medical case the reasoning has to be either clear and convincing or specific and legitimate and in the opinion i believe a lot of this circuit is the opinion must be rejected number one and the reason must be given for rejecting it if that's what the l j means to do even if it's an opinion about the ultimate issue of disability i don't think if you look at the  tucker nine hundred eighty four this is the rule that's been made clear and clear and frankly you know we've been here i don't know how many times i how many cases i'm with you all jason who will not articulate for judicial review why they've done what they've done with a particular piece of evidence they're required to do if that's the taken as true rule if they don't do it we're going to take it as true and send it back and you've got to take it as true and that's what whatever happens in light of that back at the trial court is what's going to happen  it's it is in a sense procedural that's right but there's a good reason for this court any reviewing court has to be able to look at the reasons given and decide whether those reasons are sufficient and in this case the judge just didn't give a reason didn't even say he's rejecting it of course you can infer you can say well gee if we look at the rest of his reasoning we must infer that he rejected the opinions and say i give these weight and not those weight and here's why our problem is he just didn't do that and we have an opinion which if true and it's not a trivial opinion it's not a medical opinion but these are the people that were seeing the climate on a regular basis about this limitations given to him by the charge which are based on the medical advice i'm so i think the vocational expert's opinion comes after we do whatever we do with the medical but that has to be appropriate i'd like to reserve the rest of my time for bo i can think of in this context is the sense in which is basically saying every hadlee witness is giving medical diagnoses in this case you have a nurse practitioner who is either another medical sources or a lay witness giving an opinion about  everybody says that might possibly be a statement or a belief that someone is disabled and come up with clear and convincing reasons for objecting or responding that we think that you shouldn't have to do that now with every single witness every single piece of testimony or the result that claimant asked for is to that you credit this opinion is true say that it wasn't properly rejected and remained for find you disability even now and  you have anything else you'd like me to a clear statement to the effect that you don't have to deal with accidents i think with us versus apple is quite clear that you do have to deal with evidence putting away evidence we are not here on a substantial evidence question we're not here to weigh the evidence this is clearly a matter of legal error judge has to do a certain thing by the law and the circuit the judge did not do it the very least that calls for reversal we believe because of the clarity of what the judge did it was not an error or some kind of an oversight it was a statement i'm not going to give you a re i don't know why the judge did that i think the message that the judge however has to be in this kind of a case we're not going to send it back so that you can clean up that one thing when it doesn't get another chance there's no reason in the case of this clear the i'll just get a chance