thank you may please the court my name is a time capsule you know on it i am representing stacy parker in this appeal parker has been unable to work since november two thousand and ten with multiple fractures fracture of the great interim brothy you know shoulder and depression in this case the able j erred by failing to fully and fairly develop the record by obtaining a psychological evaluation of parker record does not include any such evaluation but there is evidence of clinical observations showing that she does have depression as a result of this error the ael j then failed to properly evaluate the functional limitations the parker experiences as a result of her depression but the counsel i have a question about fibro my algebra is i read it there were some probable diagnoses barb's there is as i understand it a social security regulation that sets out tests that are supposed to be done for a definitive diagnosis and i don't enough to rule out but he did do testing to rule out he ruled on lupus and he did term and diagnosed with fibromyalgia just because where we really are constrained to to review the l g s decision here we can try to look back and go well with but was that really a good enough diagnosis i blew my odds no i and the reason i'm asking is that you are claiming dr i think you are claiming baby dr thompson's testimony is inconsistent with clinical findings and so i was looking at it from a map point of the extent of her limitations and my my question to you is that as if some of the reasons were not borne out by the record as you argue you argue that none of them are but i want you to assume for the purpose of this question that some are supported as some are not do we don't we have a president that requires us still to uphold me ok in that situation  issue the salient issue here and the issue that you'd have to be looking at is whether or not the errors negated the ale jay's overall analysis of the evidence and i believe in this case it did because there is so much testimony and i think that's the key evidence because we don't have medical opinion evidence in this case from any treating or examining sources the the essential evidence here on trying to figure that fed into it as well but the overall her description of how limited she actually is in her life is really rather compelling and the may evidence from her friend is equally compelling as far as describing just how dysfunctional she has become and and so it doesn't it seems that even if somewhere in there the l j could identify  me just ask you something if why does it matter that she was invited to exercise the question in terms of capacity is whether she has the ability to do so whether it's on her own or whether someone told her to do it so what limitations and m for example and in the other one for example she was trying to garden she's always garden had huge gardens she thought she'd be able to there's no evidence that she was actually able to there is evidence of her saying there was improvement and then yes she was doing better after one of her surgeries but on some days her foot swelled so badly and it hurt so badly she wanted to cut it off and that's the part that they didn't mention when he was mentioning oh look she said she's doing  economy that she could perform the substantial evidence standard as a deferential standard and it is a low standard and zero evidence cited by the l j a easily clears that low hurdle nine times before the date last shirred and she had two of surgeries with them thus it's no surprise that the l j called an orthopedic specialist in this case because that was the primary issue but even setting that aside day last insured the claimant told another doctor that tramadol was helping with her chronic pain issues and it was improving her quality of life and that that forced sex and i guess that is consistent with that june tw thirteen treatment knowledge at three hundred and eighty that she is very active using our hands and that she has a shot she was telling her orthopedic surgeon that she wanted to have surgery on her hands because she wanted to get back to using her hands and being active i would like to briefly address the mental impairment the social security act requires that there be a medically inter determinable impairment and in this case there is no source to die who diagnosed a mental impairment in this case and indeed there are no medical findings during the relevant period before the date lasting sure that would support any and those for happened in twenty four people and were related to a condition that she was having with her stomach when she was having severe abdominal pain inside emergency treatment and the only other right evidence cited it is her own subjective reports  doctor she was advised to see a therapist and yes it was corking look at every single document in the medical records and there is not one single no document that advice in this case here on this in the absence of any evidence suggesting that she time first of all with regard to her growing a garden she actually in that treatment no was going in for treatment because she she was injured she was hoping to get  treatment and no one actually says she tends to grow huge garden the size of rhode island now that she was growing one then with regard to giving somebody the benefit of the doubt security works on that is that true diagnosis i mean it seems to him i was saying probably are likely more likely than not is sufficient for social security purposes social security units a preponderance of gave that the ailed they gave her the benefit of the doubt by saying she is fibromyalgia well he was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt in that respect he's then got to also consider and take into account in his own residual functional capacity assessment the discounting of the extent of symptoms because in order to even get there a o j has to find that pain could be caused by the condition and not everyone suffers the same amount of lamentation from a particular every limitation to when she testifies correct it does not but just say that she's the judge giving her the benefit of the doubt while he then disregards or read jack through description the limitations he was having it's not a call that the benefit out isn't saying much there the her limitations when she described limitation on sitting i mean that's the big issue here is how limited she is in even in being able to sit her testimony her g t o testimony about how dysfunctional she is in her j j day life that's what is the only way you can really understand with something like fiber in my algebra or a chronic pain syndrome which dr doctor  admitted she agreed she had is by listening to her describe her description of the pain the a l j did not state any convincing reasons to reject her description of repeating symptoms