proceed yes good morning your honor your honor as i should say my name is christopher it goes on the attorney for plaintiff appellant richard holler mr holler challenge is the administrative law judge residual functional capacity to determination which found that he was limited to medium work provided that he only be allowed permitted to do simple routine and repetitive with has held in the delhi on and off of cases that a vocational experts testimony that jobs exists is only helpful rare the and minister it was as residual functional capacity accurately reflects the established limitations and here it cannot possibly be the case we know that because the training psychologist dr james solomon diagnosed rapid cycling bipolar disorder what this means is that he experiences highs and lows and that they fluctuate at times very quickly dr feldman reported that mister hollar speech would be rambling and pressured at times and that he was very impulsive and disruptive with respect to social functioning dr fallon and stated that he was very been disruptive with respect to interacting with the public interacting with supervisory and getting along with coworkers and so we have this very strong opinion i treating  his his thought content would be circumstantial were ten gentle the times and this mr hollar knew that this was going on he was aware when he was in a manic phase and over talkative and this was embarrassing to him he knew that he was in his words he was acting weird and this would make him feel uncomfortable so we have real palpable problems if his ability to interact with other individuals be the peers without distracting them or exhibiting behavioral extremes so when we look at all of this evidence in the record and then you look at the administrative law judge its considerable functional capacity saying that he just needs to avoid crowds that residual functional capacity doesn't reflect the real and established limitations with respect to social functioning getting along with coworkers and getting along with peers we would note that the was you know was it was he was acting acting appropriately i apologize if i misspoke but our my point is that dr gina disorder it's rapid cycling so you are going to have instances where the condition is under control and then you'll have other instances where he's moved from either from a depressive phase to a manic  phase and so pulling out some parts of the in the record where his condition might be controlled with medication but then ignoring the other parts where he's the speech is rambling cyclical that we have to account for the fact that the conditions not static over time that's exactly what the problem is here mr hollers case well in reviewing as so don't we have to because there's deference given i don't we actually have to other as it were not balancing two positions in picking one we have to we have to defer to the i j a here unless the evidence is compelling in the other direction and that's that's the test essentially instan t yes i know that to the extent that the administrative law judge doesn't adequately address evidence favorable to the claimants i'm and i believe that that's the case with respect to the treating psychiatrist d in her notes that she explicitly supports his application for disability she didn't write a report but she just noted out he's applying for disability and i support this she says that in the records and we've cited the what is there apart from mentioning that which you just said what is there really that he could discuss if that was the that was extended her who or she doesn't get into the details know about her notes describe exactly what the reasons why point in time she saw mr hollar she didn't see him over time like dr solomon and dr paradis so that's the st point i'd like to make with respect to that she thought that mr palmer has moderate stats opinion let's look to the residual functional pastorally to see where the difficulty relating adequately with others is reflected in the residual function passably i was i submit you it's not the morning your honor who the court my name is bernie norway and i represent the apparently the commission of social security commission a final decision site substantial evidence of wreckage to support each of its determination and  routine and repetitive tasks and importantly how it did not carry his burden i'm sure that he could not perform such tasks to afford a great weight to the opinion of dr stack consulted a psychologist personally examined hollar who is familiar with the social security disability regulations consistent with her examination records that the stack opined that howard had no more moderate of family health and even more so it's inconsistent with the words of with the house himself notably during the relevant period mr hollar told his treating sources at the in support of family health that he had worked at his current job for the past five years and he was self employed in computer repair as well as a member of a band with the how also told that the fact that they were in the relevant period he worked as a computer faron that he was without mark difficulty in getting along with other individuals does not mean he didn't have moderate difficulty in social functioning with this is the essence of our argument is that the administrative law dollars testimony which was that he you know he had difficulty in crowds you could go to a store but he also said he would have difficulty being online in the store so that evidence all comes together if we accept if we take the one hundred people in a crowd they all change should have also incorporated the fact that he has trouble standing in a line with other people with respect to family getting along with family and friends the record includes a report from his is former girlfriend and mr ransome says a two hundred and twenty five that he has trouble getting along with the people he was once fired franking weird noises and being he getting down to it there's there's no presentation to the vocational expert of these problems in social functioning they are in the record from the family f to be independent of the the agency and because under the the vocational expert's testimony does not reflect the real limitations in social functioning this  the final decision and remember this case for further additional proceedings to reach for a an opinion or decision that reflects mr hollers truth functional limitations and a thing of all else thank you