appellant mr johnson requests that this honorable court reverse the findings of the district court upholding the final decision of the commissioner of social care to to deny benefits specifically for two reasons one that my client in fact matter a social security regulation that would direct a finding of disability and that the evidence of record supports that finding  condition prior to age twenty two as the regulation defines mental retardation which are alayo later in my argument that the individual must suffer from those deficits in adaptive functioning prior to age twenty two but as far as the valid i q testing and other significant work related limitations of functioning that can happen at any point in your life with onset at that point in time but what evidence do you have of onset before age twenty two period as far as deficits of adaptive function in her inability to complete high school on her difficulty in high school as testified to and as indicated in the record as well as her struggles with social interactions prior to  expert testimony or medical testimony or anything that that ties that i mean lots of people have trouble before age twenty two generally you either need you know pursue potato evangelised accident or so on or you need some kind of diagnosis simply having you know an i q at a later date you can't tack that back to every problem you have or act and there is one binding piece of evidence in this case and that is the medical opinion the psychological medical opinion of dr rom korea coonass and that is a state disability psychological medical expert who swore on his professional medical opinion and this minute johnson didn't fact suffer from those and deficit's in adaptive functioning prior to age twenty two and where would you point to that in the record i would point to that and i apologise i don't have the trans per page but that is in the disability explanation which is in the a sivits it is in his report that you're referring that is his report that i'm referring to now he does also have of findings with regards to her moderate concentration persistence and pace moderate social functioning but your honour's his findings would direct a finding of disability if step three were as his conclusions would be associated five as a disability process a five step process where step three is evaluation of whether or not individual meets or equals a listing level regulation his later findings about fact find that the claimant met that criteria and the district court admitted to that as well finding that instead that she didn't suffer from that requisite additional and severe impairment i'm sorry to go back no that's ok helpful if you can't do it now it would be helpful in your rebuttal if you have one for you to show exactly where in korea coonasses report he refers to this said before age twenty two absolutely just as the government of page twenty six flatly says to the contrary and i would have been looking at your brief to see if i other other than a sort of a reci brief cites page id five sixty six that does use the words during the developmental period but at least on its face it appears to be a recitation of the standard rather than a separate finding but i don't have in front of me either so i  as well before i apologize your honor that that is on the form it is suffered that was my ok so so there is a page on the form page id three twenty four it says significantly is a bad bridge general intellectual functioning with deficits initially manifested during the developmental period and he checks number for a valid verbal performance or full scale i q of sixty three seventy is that what you're referring to that's correct but was there an i q test of between sixty and seventy before twenty two and that's not actually a requirement it's verbal i q test in this case of sixty nine can be found at any point and is there a case or an interpretation of the regulations that supports your position an and dr kalam the evaluation was done by koopman and the judge actually gives significant weight to that opinion in his determination but not only does the administrative law judge failed to actually fully fully reflect that full opinion in his determination and in the hypothetical testimony a political question presented to the vocational expert during the hearing in which the judge relied upon the testimony defendant actually makes a very poignant argument that cruet man is not a doctor cannot you know provide diagnoses and so cooper men's lack of that diagnosis of mental retardation is immaterial to this case because koopman in fact could not provide a diagnosis herself of mental retardation further because the judge actually relied upon that opinion evidence the judge did not fully account for the reading disorder that kuperman did provide  and as far as the limitations of very low stress work the climate's ability to perform any work above that very low stress and then we could tension concentration memory and that report was signed off on by d in addition that access to finding of a different diagnosis would reflect that koopman and dr callen did not have enough information themselves because they were only basing it on that one simple evaluation of whether or not the claimant could in fact suffer from mental retardation were his doctor korea coonasses medical opinion is based on the entire medical file type or social security exhibits in making that determination that she does suffer from mental retardation that she does not meet the capsule definition of mental retardation is that an accurate quote and how would you respond to that is an accurate quote from the count of the from the claimants administrative level coun would brief for us back to the only expert medical opinion evidence of record with that which the judge did not consider in his determination counsels  to she had one pager number and i gave you a different page number of that's what you're really rights what i'm referring to that and not that section fifteen twenty seven twenty c f r for a four point fifteen twenty seven requires the administrative law judge the commission of social  evaluate every medical anion of record and the judge failed to do so in this case at the cost of the claim its benefits really as that medical expert found that she did suffer from the  that definition of disability you know certainly those are very close in general and the judge still did not a value in any criteria of twelve final five see whether or not she match or equal that criteria and reynolds would direct that one there any further questions at the psyche counsel you'll have your time for rebuttal thank you as that or some more here i can you hear me ok yes may please the court danielle patterson for the acting commissioner  social security i apologize for my absence the o'hare airport gods just did not deem me fit to appear before you this morning in person and for that i apologize starting out with a twelve o five  argument this in our opinion is sort of just a red herring in this case the appellant is sort of clinging to this life raft that has been constructed quite weakly from a single i q score and a single checkbox on the report of the reviewing state agency psychologist the those two things notwithstanding this record overwhelmingly compels a finding that m johnson was did not meet or any come anywhere near equaling the listing for mental retardation in fact the revealing stated and see psychologist if you look at the first page of his report clearly where he makes his ultimate determination as to what step in this case should be evaluated that he clearly does not check either of the boxes showing that she meets or equals a listing he checks the box saying that her residual functional capacity must be evaluated furthermore again this is an individual who has not even alleged in the record that she has cognitive difficulties council a few moments ago suggested that she did not finish high school  and while that was initially true she says she dropped out because she was having social problems problems getting along with people there was no indication she had cognitive issues she herself testified she had average grades and there are several places in the record she indicates she did not require special education this is completely inconsistent with the type of adaptive functioning deficits that one would expect to see in an individual who is mentally retarded furthermore if you look at the other mental health specialists of record at least four other mental health specialists opined that she had average intelligence when they examined her and i will again the stressed that there is not a single diagnosis score judge more should be a o j have addressed this point in the decision the o j did address this point in his decision your honor if you look at page six of ten of the l g s decision although he didn't do it under the auspices of trouble five c he did specifically discuss that intelligence testing and did note that there was not even a finding of borderline functioning borderline intellectual functioning let alone mental retardation so although the l j did not specifically address this evidence at the step three listing part dale jr made the right finding that he would need to make to make this court feel secure that he would not on remand find that this individual was mentally retarded or matter equal that listing again the the ever the evidence including every piece of evidence from ms johnson herself just overwhelmingly demonstrates that this is not a mentally retarded individual we don't have deficits in adaptive functioning either before age twenty two or after for that fact and the only person who actually administered the i q testing and woman is koopman was a counselor she was being supervised by a license callen said that the higher i q score i believe the one that was closer to eighty nine was actually the true reflection of for her intellectual functioning so i i feel confident that this court will see that remand in this case for a more evaluation of that issue is would serve no useful purpose here and there's this clearly overwhelming evidence compelling a finding that the two of the five c was not matter equal is there a specific definition of deficit in adaptive functioning or  regulatory precedents on that absolutely or on of those two places that are instructed on that the first place would be in our regulations in the introduction introductory language to the mental health listings which would be found parentheses a is an apple discusses that when when looking at mental retardation situation that i q scores are really only a small part of the assessment and it talks there about what type of adaptive functioning deficits we're looking at it talks about focusing on the educational background and looking at grades and looking at the person's ability to function independently in fact if you look at another subsection of listing twelve zero zero it's twelve zero zero zero zero s a it specifically requires for it so there is a that the person is basically unable to function independently and is sort of dependent on other people and those four subsections are meant to sort of the equivalent severity there just four different ways you can meet the severity and again looking back at this individual just can't even begin to define any of those types of deficits the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders d s m four d s m four revised as we usually call it also has a very lengthy section on this and i believe recorded some of that in our brief that it does again talk about what kind of of deficits we're talking about and these people who meet these this listing are people who you know i can only work in a sheltered workshop they you know they are usually in special ed in school we're talking about people who are you know really not able to function independently and again this is kind of a nonstarter in this case this this individual certainly has some some personality issues and some social issues but there's just absolutely no evidence of a cognitive impairment at all if you don't have a talk about the vocational expert testimony on that aspect of the case that how do you mean your honor well as i understood it your adversary sort of has t strings to his bio one says you should have done it under twelve point five c which mean you didn't get to the final hearing today alternatively i'm sure he or his arse will argue that if you do then there were various defects so i just was asking whether you want to do address the latter part independently sure the mental r f c in this case is supported by substantial evidence appellants main argument appears to be that the j somehow didn't incorporate all of the limitations set out by dr crick coonass who was the reviewing psychologist and while we would still maintain that that if you look at the bottom line the doctor korea could gives at the end of of his opinion i think that page idea i want to say three twenty seven or three twenty eight he actually spells out what her functional capacity is and the a l j did accomodate all of the the limitations that were set out there in his functional capacity for only simple unskilled work of a routine and repetitive nature interestingly appellant seems to sort of argued that ms koopman was not an acceptable medical source when it's convenient for her argument but then turns and suggests that she is an acceptable medical source such as the l j was compelled to adopt every one of her findings such as her finding that there was a reading disorder and her finding that there that there needed to be low stress work our response to that is twofold number one to the extent that ms koopman noted there was a reading disorder the l j limited this individual to unskilled simple work the same type of work she had done previously and there's no evidence on the record that she could no longer continue to perform that type of work and with respect to the low stress comment made by ms koopman we would note that at that time this was the very beginning sort of of this medical record and ms johnson was not taking appropriate medication at that time it was specifically noted she was not receiving any treatment at that time and what dr koopman or ms koopman actually said was that she needed to sort of get her mental situation under control some treatment and that you know at that time on medicated you know she would be limited to low stress work again despite the fact that the the words low stress don't appear in the r c we would advance that  limitation to on skilled simple routine repetitive work is certainly the type of work that would not be particularly high stressed or requiring you know there to be a lot of high demands on that person intellectually or stress wise so i get the ale james r c is supported by substantial evidence and to the extent that ms johnson argues that the l j didn't adopt every single little finding by the revealing state agency psychologist we would draw th court's attention to a case that was issued yesterday it's an unpublished case but this court issued the jason smith case yesterday and that's case number one three three five seven eight and drawing your attention to page three of that decision this court held that there is no requirement that an l j adopt the entirety of the state expert opinion even if affording that opinion significant weight or that the l j provide an explanation for why certain limitations posed by the expert were not incorporated into his residual functional capacity assessment and they can for you because you shouldn't be able to do these simple tests for extended periods or do you think that's not necessary i would i would advance and that's not necessarily the only finding really on that issue is the the checkbox of the doctor create coonass that she had moderate difficulties sustaining concentration persistence or pace but even he said in his ultimate conclusion that she could she could sustain and she had the capacity to sustain simple unskilled work and that's exactly what they'll jay found she could do so that the ale days are c and and the hypothetical question which mirrored that  are entirely consistent with and supported by those medical opinions unless the court has other questions we would ask that you affirm the acting commissioner's decision that ms johnson was not disabled and not your honour's and i will just begin by addressing the page numbers i have the administrative record page numbers of two sixty eight and two seventy two for dr critic eunice's medical opinion on the issue of that is a decision where the administrative law judge did address the medical opinion in his determination at present the administrative law judge failed and completely omitted to address the opinion the medical concession that may have been made below but was there any place in the record that your honor you know you ought to look at the twelve or was it wholly that the judge should independently have looked at the checkbox and said ok i've got to talk about it certainly or honor in counsel's administrative pre hearing brief to the judge as we previously discussed although that administrative  with regards to the aspect of the defendant's a how we use argument that there is no that make sure i got that this distinction equaling meeting in effect you're saying he argued that taking the evidence as a whole she might not have have met the definition point by point but her condition would have equal that what the and that was the council's administrative level argument certainly that she equalled the met the listings without having to look outside them that's correct you're right now i understand it fine thanks with regards to a pelleas argument that there was no cognitive disorder it's brief is a medical expert that signed off on it dr callen felt that the climate did suffer from a cognitive disorder specifically that reading disorder that was never addressed in the administrative law judge was fined ins as would be required regulation so there is actually a cognitive cognitive disorder that the judge emitted any consideration of dr korea coonass was well aware of this cognitive disorder and provided his opinion based on the entire evidence of record with regards to the latter argument that the administrative law judge did account for all of those limitations posed by dr korea cumulus and dr koop meant that very low stress work environment isn't necessarily accounted for and that even unskilled job could require specific production quotas that could lead to stress and that needs to be addressed with a vocational expert because it's only that vocational pressley that my time is up and i finish the point when i'm in the locational expert is the one providing information about what is in is not required by a certain job and that needs to be fairly reflect and not hypothetical question and for the judge to be able to rely on that testimony from that expert appellant would certainly ask the based on the medical evidence of record based