disability and december two thousand and seven which is when he was hospitalized and while hospitalized suffered acute respiratory failure since then he's recover from many of the impairments that he had when at the time of the hospi reject every treaty source every examining source and one stat attempts rely on the opinion of a non examining source who never even reviewed the entire file it's a common problem we see in this and can do that if they give specific legitimate reasons to do so and then actually you can't when there when it's on contradicted well that's what we have here we have one contradicted evidence because there isn't even a  that even with medication the treatment was working he was relatively stable but nevertheless when he would have exacerbations he would miss work and he estimated that during those exacerbations who would miss three or more days of work per month and this was similar to the examining physician state agency position but that state agency physician last reviewed the file i believe was equal two thousand and nine so did not review anything after that and so arguably from that point to also you know those are the main areas but one of the problems i saw in this case was that the the elgin never even mention the hospitalisation record doesn't even include the medical records from that hospitalization through a quirk of record requesting social security never requested that period of records they've started i think january first and so hospitalization shortly before that frequency of the abdominal discomfort that is something that really in less you're living with the doctor they're not going to witness every incident but they are going to witness it when you go to the doctor and here experiencing at hearing it's reflected in the record so that's the first problem in looking at credibility keep that in mind that it was the credibility analysis was tainted by her by l j rejecting h properly rejecting all of supportive medical evidence but with regard to the actual reasons she gave there were only a few reasons she talked about inconsistent statements because there were different doctors that report that reason doesn't take into account that it's an intermittent problem it does vary greatly over time it was much worse between two thousand and eight two thousand and nine and got quite a bit better but it would still he's he wants to work and so the fact that somebody wants to work is not a reason to disregard their their testimony about their symptoms and as he didn't use that as a reason to reject all medical evidence but it certainly isn't a valid reason to reject  lost jobs because of it but he continued to work and until the hospitalization where things really fell apart form so the fact that he used to work let's true in pretty much every title to case every title to case they worked until they couldn't work anymore so that that's not a valid reason a convincing reason for reject this testimony about how he was no longer able to to handle work and the other thing is that the l g there was focusing on  opinion on d'elegance mental well once again i mean there needed to be convincing reasons for rejecting her opinion she was treating physician she was working closely it isn't the same clinic with the mental health not only on her own clinical observations and her on her experience of treating him and seeing him face to face but also on the treatment notes from within her clinic for mental health ericus and based on all of that she came to the conclusion that he couldn't handle the stress of the work that he was the fact that she would be having a tremor even in her office just he has the findings they describe of him  but i should she would talk to him and and and describe it sounds like she thought it was more frequent and worse then then he described it at some point so there was some physician or of a therapist rely on they also rely on their clinical observations such as wanted after the tremor of the visible things that they could see at the here at their in their  of him so although the a l j arguably had some valid reasons for questioning some of the physical limitations ascribed by dr halle and i'm not sure that she would need more than legitimate if you don't have any more questions now i would like to reserve my time thank you thank you argument appears to be that's primarily based upon mental disability that's been presented here i'd like to begin by responding to that as to the court's question about dr haley on page thirty two of the l d'elegance reported to dr kenderdine that when he's worked in the past he has no problems interacting with supervisors and that exhibit four even when he was initially filling out his functional report he said that he has no problems with supervisors as well and the elegy noted this inconsistency later on when discounting mr galleons subjective complaints related to that as far as other social two seven one five two seven i was one five to seven yeah but consideration is not comparable to require discussion if you're we can say that all things being equal the l g was most persuaded by the reasons that she provided there is no hierarchy of reasons in the commission's regulations so we it's not required to weigh the factors i thought it  factors that are set forth in the commissioner's regulations don't say one factor carries a greater weight unless it's a treating source that's uncommon for dictated by other evidence in the record i would be amazed if this court ever sees such a case because i mean that's why we're fighting is there is evidence on both sides the other factors such as the specialization the length of treating relationship how well the treating source reviewed the record whether it's consistent with the record and then the catchall any other factors for the weight those factors are all equal and the l g has discretion in how they  the fact he was the treating source was not ignoring the fact that he had some access to records but the l g found that it was more appropriate of was the inconsistency with an examining sources opinion which this court has said that mirroring consistency with an examining sources opinion is specific and a legitimate reason to discount a treatment sources opinion and the l g also include concludes at the end of the claimant has mostly normal mental exam findings which refers back to the discussion of the mostly normal mental exam findings and for that l j relied  specificity in the gas scores alone is why he has to actually look at what the weather you know whether he has a logical thought process his fund of knowledge and for that the l g actually relied on mental status commission's regulations the elegy is permitted to compare a doctor's opinion with how consistent it is with other evidence in the record and did so here i would like to correct one point  because it was said that l j rejected all the mental opinions in this record the l g did rejects the non examining sources opinion in this record and it was because the non examining for source found no severe mental impairments so the l j actually he gave the claimant the benefit of the doubt and said i am are jacking that opinion because there clearly are mental impairments that need to be accommodated for in this record as far as ups the length of flare ups and the number of moments that he would have during the day and this was quite the contrast because he showed up to the hearing and testified that he had one to two flare of some  and during those flare ups he would have to go to the bathroom up to four times in an hour whereas throughout the entire record the l g goes into detail explaining that it's consistently between one and three a day at most four so that's when we talk about a condition that has i guess peaks and valleys where you have a condition where sometimes you're performing very well and then sometimes you have a flare up and you're performing poorly the a l j in recognizing that this testimony was not credible was saying even in his valleys when he was at his worst he still had at most  only four bowel movements a day and the l g also discussed the presence of blood and pain and also found that these were actually very rare occurrences even when he describes pain it's described as a mild discomfort that some pages page for ninety and then we go to the point where after he starts treatment with doc you know young it goes into remission which isn't the point that undermines people just for months before the hearing that shows no symptoms whatsoever and finally that there's conflicting evidence on the physical i get that but the me impairments i'm just having a hard time understanding who would want to hire him to help around the office or clean their house it's at the end of the day that's what the ale jay found and i know we have all these factors regulations and procedures but at the end of day my going to want this guy cleaning my house or helping around the office and unfortunately your honor the standard is not if we put ourselves in the face there but your honor he has he has friends that he plays cards with twice a week they clearly have no problem with him being around he describes years and years of working and only two instances with where he walks off the job because of a problem with employer and if you look at his testimony on sixty five there are situations that you and i might have done the same thing he walks off because of a safety concern and he walks off because he feels that  supervisor was not giving them a fair shake or he was showing up doing his job and it just wasn't fair so i'm not trying to sugarcoat it you're saying he's not trying arne at the end of the day so well he can work he just doesn't want to work or it might be a it certainly might be a situation where he's applying for the wrong jobs your honor where he is plying for jobs that are more demanding than what his residual functional capacity accommodates but the l g was very accommodating in this residual functional capacity report because even though he says i have a play cards with friends twice a week and that's an exhibit for easy the l g says you're only required to have a job where you  have contact with your coworkers and he even though he says also in four e i generally get along pretty well the supervisors and he tells well that's dr kennard on as well i generally get along positive relationships with our peers and supervisors the l g said you only have to work at a job where you have occasional and very brief contact with sort supervisors he says i have problems being around large crowds and the a l j accommodates that  mental status exams performed by dr kenderdine dr wilkinson and dr with line unless the court has any other questions i would just quickly address the point about the tremors it is the position of the commissioner that to just describe tremors is not a diagnosis from his have to come from somewhere they might come from drinking too much coffee they might come from arguing before the ninth circuit but they were cited in may of two thousand and seven so they do not qualify as deceiving impairment and if you look at the record dr healy's record at five forty seven and five forty eight five forty six he actually says i think there's psych related i have no idea what they are and then for the final point your honor i would like to address this point that doctor of the young didn't talk about lifting restrictions when assessing i mean the l g didn't talk about dr long lens lifting restrictions there is nothing in dr lee young's reports to support lifting restrictions about why somebody with  s can't lift more than twenty five pounds especially when it's in remission made that explanation explicit for his walking restriction and whether we have to go down the path of saying that the l j we can clearly just tell the l j wasn't required to discuss everything or whether we have to go down the path of molino and say the l g should have acknowledge this limitation but it would be harmless error because and that's the big issue that was not included in residual functional capacity as an assessment every all the discussion about how well you give the supervisors surely you just finally supervisors nobody's questioning that the question is whether or not he'd be fine with the now but somebodies mental illness without discussing any of the clinical findings from the treatment providers and i don't see how she can convincingly reject the treating physicians opinion that's based on all those funny without discussing any of that evidence and regarding the carts yeah he played cards one times a week doesn't say with who or how often and that was in march of two thousand and nine that says it is not a valid reason to reject all of the mental thank you for your arguments are the cases now