item on our calendar is fan jones verses the commissioner of social security stone is psychiatrically disabled by major depression when he became disabled by major depression and how do we know that when he wasn't seeking treatment i mean what what would you have the ignitor sort of judge do it's clear that the administrative law judge had an obligation to recontact the treating source wasn't being treated during most of this period this court has held that a retrospect opinion from a treating physician can be controlling on the issue of whether an individual was disabled at an earlier date i understand more than was says but he didn't have a treating physician for most of this period and that's always true in th case is not always true but sometimes is true in the cases where a psychiatrically disabled individual doesn't get the treatment that they need or in this case he didn't seek treatment he just didn't get psychiatric treatment in two thousand and ten when he was fired from his job because they didn't he didn't have insurance once he was discharged eyes job and that's clear from the what what if we if we had to admit or sort of or judge that it has to get this says this guy is depressed he was talking about suicide mr mr stone doesn't have the good insight that he should have to figure out when he should go to the emergency room he was dragged to the emergency room by the police at the suggestion of someone who came into his home and realize that something was askew mr stone had been crying out for help he had sought treatment he thought he just needed psychiatric medications paxil and his  primary care physician actually a nurse practitioner did prescribe that we see later on when dr garza starts to treat mr stone dr garza says he's medication resistant and we have to try many different things to get him to the right level of optimal treatment and that's at a point where the judge agrees while on medication he's disabled we can we can and we can and the commissioner insults the security ruling eighty three twenty says you can infer an earlier onset date in impairments of non traumatic disorders and that happens regularly in the social security administration it's set out that there may not be records of treatment disability insurance benefit and the ruling is clear if it's there is a blueprint for what the administrative law judge is supposed to do in that instance but this court is also held that in rows simply of the accepted his opinion completely in finding that mr stone was disabled as of june twenty ninth two thousand and thirteen a date that has no medical relevance whatsoever right under her decision he's to say he's not disabled he doesn't even impairment under the social security rules the way that they characterize it on june twenty eighth two thousand and thirteen but the next day he's completely disabled there's nothing in the file that supports that the judge is supposed to under psychiatric specialist can go back and say based upon the character of this person's presentation they were disabled all along and this does happen it happens in many cases but there were no records on which he could draw those for it there's a history that he was that's not disputed mr stone says he was hospitalized in november of two thousand and six at columbia presbyterian those records either were not available or they weren't requested he testifies he has a life long history of depression passively suicidal since age seven saying that it would be ok if i didn't wake up in the morning this is something that he's dealt with his whole life for what it's worth he has a family history apparently a grandmother cousin of all committed suicide and one side of the family and he courted him he's dealt with this is whole life there's a letter from his his pastor saying that in august of two thousand and ten m stone was inconsolable having lost his job as a flight attendant and his testimony at the hearing is that he he only now understands what was going on back then and the attribute t his depression social security ruling tells us that we start with the date alleged by the individual we look at their work history sometimes the work record can tell us what happened in this case he was fired there's no dispute that delta fired him for poor performance treatment from dr docu we know that once people does present to a psychiatry first the consultative psychiatrist says that he in two thousand and thirteen associated with the claim september two thousand and thirteen that doctor says this person is moderate to marked limitations dealing with other people dr garza of course has kind of the same thing i'm a little bit more emphatic the judge judge accepts that the judge was obligated to at least tell mr stone oh by the way you should go to your treating doctor and ask him whether or not your disability began as of september of two thousand and eleven the case for that is cruz this court to determine that if the a l j doesn't do what they're supposed to do it to develop the record they should at the court amanda parse out for them down to do whatever so we can hear you a little better ok good thanks thank you your honor and amanda herself for the commissioner of social security and the commissioner properly denied mr stone disability insurance claim here because he failed to meet his burden of proof to show that his depression and seasonal affective disorder was assailing prior to his date last insured once the l j rendered a fully favorable to one of those slowly progressing illness  this isn't a continually progressive illness mr stone had a longstanding history of depression there were ups and downs many years he was fully functioning able to work in skilled professions he was a teacher from his fully functioning just because he wasn't going to see a doctor he was in fact going to see a doctor here he was seeing his treatment was managed by his internist who monitored his depression and his mood and those contemporaneous trippin records from two thousand and ten and two thousand and were a bailable to the ail j and showed that his symptoms were responding well to antidepressants that he slept well that he was feeling good that he was doing better he denied any suicidal ideation he had negative mental satisfying things like non pressured speech and goal oriented speech this was a sufficient record for the l j to make a decision about his functional limitations during two thousand and ten and two thousand and eleven and that's why there was no need for any further retrospective opinions from dr garza who as the court noted had not even met mr stone at this point in the relevant time period who didn't meet until years later and would have had little if any basis other than those records apart about his functioning years before particularly when the record does the law the regulations and the case law seems to require the to to figure out to get someone to draw the inference of vanzant doesn't it no honor first i would say with respect to s s r eighty three twenty which has since been rescinded by the agency to clarify that a medical expert has never required to obtain onset date in this case the that without a medical experts testimony if there is a sufficient record the cases cited by the plaintiff involve the absence of treatment records or situation were the l a l j relied on the ambiguity in the record to find an arbitrary onset date here once the s s i claim is determined favorably the only question was whether the mr stone was disabled prior to his date last insured this is issue raised in every disability insurance benefits claim it was well within the able days discretion to determine this based on the contemporaneous medical records mr stone's own testimony that he was a well slept well took care of his personal hygiene manage his household activities and was independent activities of daily living among in addition to the treatment records and his activities in seeking to appeal his especially in his ability to take public transportation to go on job interviews all of this was substantial evidence that he was not suffering from debilitating depression in two thousand and ten and twenty eleven so this is not a case where there was an absence of treatment or an absence of evidence the l j relied on the presence of evidence that his depression was not one of one of the situations where it was severe and preventing him from working indeed the records from twenty ten and twenty eleven showed that he himself reported that he was feeling similar to prior episodes when he felt the winter blues when he was still able to work as a flight attendant and previously as a schoolteacher to visit as counsel alluded to dr docu and april two thousand and eight where he talks about his depression that's correct your honor n two thousand and eight he was still working full time as a flight attendant he worked as a flight attendant for two more years after that through june two thousand and ten and so that consistency between the period when he was able to work and his symptoms continued roughly the same from two thousand and eight to two thousand and ten and then continued two thousand and ten to two thousand and eleven was all so evidence that the l j found supported the finding that his depression was not severe during this time period he was able to hold his job yes your honor among other things maintain his personal hygiene maintain his household activities among a number of other things and the records themselves show in two thousand and ten when he's complaining about you know being suspended from his job he also had a breakup with a significant other and that his life was falling apart he continued to deny symptoms of depression other than being with our dickon tired he said he was having good control he said he was feeling good and doing well so you can look to these treatment records to infer that mr stone was not disabled prior to his date last insured point the court to its decision presby chaytor which addressed a similar situation where they were treating records available from the disability insurance time period and the court held that it was not required to find a retrospective opinion from doctors who treated the claimant after the date last insured and in that case there wasn't functional sassaman from the doctor who treated them during the relevant period it was medical records good that his antidepressants were working during this period and back pressure near the record indicates that he never thought they handed the person's work for a very long term on he would take them and they would stop work and doesn't that show the presence of disease during that period he did have depressive disease during that period but they were under control according to the medical records ok it does the record does show he had a longstanding history of depression but there were long periods of time during his adult life when he was working in maintaining a job here in a bachelor's degree a master's degree he lived abroad and there's no indication that his depression prevented him from working and in overlooking just at the relevant time period and eleven the contemporaneous treatment records show that this was one of those time periods where despite significant life stressors of losing his job and his significant other he was still maintain his good mood his good sleep and controlling his symptoms with antidepressants the fact that he later deteriorated and during the s s i time period did become one of those periods where it was a down does not and therefore and therefore there was no need to further develop the record by painting yet another retrospective opinion they all day did make thorough efforts to develop the records he obtained a opinion from dr carson about the time administrative law judge to decide whether or not she would need a medical expert to understand the the evidence it's our position that if you have a case where the i should have sought this information in the first instance from the treating source which is what the regulations say when that when that's prompted it would be an abuse of discretion for the a l j not to obtain a medical adviser to help her understand then to instead then say well the treating doctor didn't reply or is unavailable i'll take it upon myself to make this determination that i initially thought would be best addressed by treating doctor the near commissioner the evidence that this is just in that court should give that the i was correcting giving significant weight to the mr stone's presentation to his primary care physician in two thousand and ten and eleven i think has to give way to the case law which in the case of blankenship which is side in our case the concept that a mentally impaired individual is not the best person to judge their own the level of their own impairment what else do we have but reporting dr garza we have a we have a whole line of cases including wagner which says that oh when a treating special this later comes comes into the picture and  it an opinion that reaches back in time and says i understand what was going on here based upon my understanding my expertise as a specialist in my opposing counsel the argument that he had good periods and bad period what about that that makes our case i think kind of someone with lifelong depression he has ups and downs and june and august of two thousand and ten was a down period that has never come back he's been acknowledged to be disabled as of two thousand and thirteen on the strength of the specialist this getting to actually start to see psychiatric treatment he denied that he was depressed he didn't seek help when people said oh you know what you're suicidal and you should go to the hospital so that's the type of person we're dealing with lastly you have to know that the reliance on the prez versus chaytor case i think is missed is an appropriate because in that case there was a treating physician statement that the relevant during the relevant period time i think contemporaneous that the individual had the ability to do sedentary work and therefore the minister of law judge correctly relied upon that that there was no additional obligation for a new later acquired physician to get an opinion from them one when that record was properly developed that's not the case here thank you thank you both over served decision