denial of her claim for disability benefits under the social security act there are two kinds of legal error in this case the the most important kind was the administrative law judges errors in failing to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting evidence and this affected both his treatment of medical opinion evidence and of witness testimony evidence and what i is garrison versus colton and this goes to the administrative law judges errors in his treatment his rejection of medical opinion evidence just a reminder on the fundamental in the medical reports in the record but not a single one of them finds any mention in the administrative law judges decision to citizen and so it's clear from harrison vs colvin case is because you would she apply as i understand it like you're telling him right she applied in two thousand and nine for a disability carries ending in two thousand i don't even know you could do that that is  and just there's no limit on it not to my knowledge ok and and she had almost no medical records from the perry before two thousand very little that is correct all right so and you need medical records whatever the other testimony may be right that is correct you do need medical records but the case law is very clear that the medical records themselves do not have to be generated before they date last i'm sure they have to tell you something about they do have to bear on the conditions that existed at that prior that nobody is contesting that she had this injury and she had the left side weakness the question is what was  impact on her during the relevant time period that's correct and it seemed to me the supervening problem here is that there's almost nothing that tells us in terms of and the burden is on the claimant and their regard right right with that that's correct but i would disagree that the medical records tell you nothing of her condition during that period at the same injury of the cerebral vascular accident occurred in one thousand fifty six you know that so you also know that she was quite operator for quite a period of time well so therefore at some point something had to change and the question is what and certainly the alj it was was entitled to that conclusion i e why was she able to be a teacher and  and so on and now she isn't so something about the medical records after tell you that and what tells you that tells you that well i guess i would disagree with your first premise that we know she was quite active what we know are the labels job we do know she held a job but the nature of that one as well well the nature of that job is is something that one might draw many conclusions about without inquiring into the factual predicate for it so she said that she was a teacher for twenty years well what the record shows was that she was a substitute teacher for fifteen years and the earnings reports from that time show that her earnings were generally two to three thousand a year so i would submit that she did not work very many days of the month for a full time for some period she also worked full time for some period now that full time again in her application indicated problem here medical records which is exacerbated by the fact that she did have full time jobs at some time so that the plant just never seen a case like this so the medical records and again that the conditions were chronic long standing there was nothing you would seek treatment for when you have cerebral palsy at you know the age of three it affects abnormalities that are with you for the rest of your life i mean it's permanent and so you don't go in seeking treatment for a deformed foot and ankle or leg length disability or prowesses heavy paralysis and half your body there's nothing you can do to treat those conditions so it's not surprising that there's not this long history but i also suspect that the problem is one of records for attention can't but he could have taken steps to clarify the existing medical evidence and specifically the two records that do predate the expiration of her coverage we're at the one nine hundred ninety nine june one thousand nine hundred ninety reports from d o'connell that specifically focus on her left hand now a part that was fall she was on a bike and she fell you're correct your honor that almost every accident every medical report is the result of a fall o but it was short lived and she was on the way to recovery actually let me back up you're referring to dr o'connell's report examining her right hand so there were two of those and they were for false i think on the two thousand and one and perhaps on the two thousand what i'm referring to is her left hand and that was not because of a fall that was when dr o'connell noted that she comes in with a new complaint of numbness in her left hand these symptoms have been getting worse for two to three years which in one thousand nine hundred nine that would put the onset of symptoms in about one thousand nine hundred sixty and she's reporting trapping things and this is getting worse and this is a result of her cerebral palsy and her left sided weakness and so that is in one thousand nine hundred ninety four the expiration of coverage so the again the reports show that there were a great many after out abnormalities and impairments all relating to the slab sided weakness or hemet precess that existed throughout her life and the fact that she was able to be a resource teacher in a small class you know with a group of five children helping them read does not  indicate that she was very able bodied and that the important thing here is that it's undisputed there's no dispute that she had at least five severe impairments and that she was not she was limited to less than the full range of sedentary work and that she was not capable of doing her prior work so when you're limited to the full rate less than the full range of seven terry work you need to have good use of both hands in order to do the occupations that are out there so the real crux of the case was whether the judges properly rejected her testimony that she could only use her right hand and this was the one where he found a severe impairment he found you know that she'd had it rebuilt after falling on it so many times whether she could use that more than two thirds of the day and whether she could use her left hand less than one third of the day so when she gave the testimony that she had those limitations and couldn't use her hands the vocational expert was very clear that if you incorporate at those restrictions in the residual functional capacity that the judge found and this is again without even making findings of brain injuries which is if you just incorporated those restrictions it eliminated all other work in the economy there was nothing that she could do so the import of the medical evidence is that this left sided weakness was it was observed there were clinical observations and impressions of it there is nothing you can not beat the evidence and see anything that indicated some new or acute onset all of those medical reports that post date the coverage yes they deal with fa she kept hurting herself but they don't they they note in the course of just saying all these all these little falls are minor and the result they don't not dispute that she had a long conic condition of left sided weakness that affected her ability to as i say use her hands there was also testimony and medical evidence that infected other abilities her vision and her communication skills but for purposes of this appeal the court really doesn't need to go beyond  ruling that the judge erred in rejecting her testimony about and her family's testimony about her ability to use her hands so again i'd just like to stress that the the rejection of this medical evidence  than to the same effect you must give reasons for rejecting a treating doctor's opinion and so it stands to reason that you know even if the judge was entitled to reject these records he had to at least mention language of that determination was just before this court in tricolor versus commissioner it adjudicated the language that that is not a sufficient credibility's is from a nation and it fails to meet the legal standard of specifically identify the testimony and then providing clear and specific reasons for rejecting it so i think it's play under the court's precedents that this case has these legal errors and the decision must be reversed now again they're not harmless error because there's no dispute that she had these severe impairment that she had these restricted abilities that the occupational base open to her was very restricted and then if you add in this testimony there are no jobs in the vocational expert was clear so the other recent case i can kerrison recently be examined and reaffirmed this court's long settled credit history rule so the appropriate remedy in this case is credited as true the vocational expert already testified there's no jobs available that the administrative law judge would have had no no choice but to find her disabled within the social security thank you tha on behalf of the government if you please the court i'd like to start by addressing a couple of the factual matters that the claimant will have raised first the occupation as a schoolteacher  the allegation that she was a substitute teacher is refuted in the record by claimants own statements in a form that she filled out when she was applying for benefits and sorry i don't have the paper now what about this notion at  the i'm not sure what difference it makes but that the earnings records show that most year she made tutors three thousand dollars i think that is we have to go by what their earnings records say but she said herself that she was working five days a week for six hours a day it seems i was really this is really bad or sometimes she was and sometimes she was i think i have that's probably fair to conclude but it is clear that she was working as a teacher which is skilled work requiring a college education and it's as you said a good job and it's light work so we know that whatever her limitations were from the two thousand that's right and just reading the testimony of peers to me that there are some cognitive issues with respect to her testimony as well i think would explain the difference and i'm not sure if i would agree with that i agree that there the l j seem to be having some trouble listening to testimony  but i don't think that that does not establish mental limitations and there's no medical evidence whatsoever of any mental limitations so we clearly don't have the medical and objective evidence necessary to make any finding like that especially not during the time as you've noted she applied for benefits almost ten years after the end of her i'm sure period during her insured status up to two thousand september of two i'd like to make a point about those notes during the insured period pacifically from dr o'connell in one thousand nine hundred nine in two thousand those notes are made in the historical portion of the opinion where the doctor takes a history from the patient and he i believe is recounting how the claimant is describing her condition from childhood he's treating her for bumps and bruises trains from falls as you noted he's not treating cerebral palsy and the i think the record is very very limited on that and i actually want to point out that claimant made a notation or at a point about the duration of the team going in the left hand she said two to three years and worsening that's on page three thirty two just a few pages before from the same event this same day or within the same couple of days when she's getting salmon for this complaint she says it started a month before or maybe a year before and that just goes to show that these are her subjective reports problem or her crown but the fact that it was chronic and continuing he didn't mention he didn't say what he mentions the testimony but it doesn't say whether he credited  credit he doesn't mention any of the post two thousand medical evidence including a subsistence one can assume that that meant he thought it wasn't turned into i gather the laws that it can be permanent is that right that's right that it can be pertinent i think it's also right that he thought most of it wasn't pertinent well he did he say even mention sexists he refers to a record from two thousand  ffs the last paragraph on page thirty six of the record page four of the opinion he's referring to two thousand and one it's also very clear from the transcript that he understands the the relevance of that information and that he should look at it clear that he did from the transcript but that it's only relevant to the extent it's able to show her limitations during the insured period which it does not ok go ahead just returning to the main point it's the claimants burden to prove disability and for reasons that we don't know she waited a very long time before filing this claim she hasn't been able to provide contemporaneous evidence the statute simply requires some medical proof of a disability during the insured period before the close of that period and her own reports are just not enough  the only evidence that we have of manipulative limitations during the insured period are her statements to that effect in the testimony and there is just not enough medical proof for the agency to make a she can't apply after a long time no sir no your honor there's not she can apply there's no limit on that of course practically it's limited by what she can prove at that point but no she's she's able to bring the case just a question of the quality of the proof that's correct ok thank you agreed the l g a gave no reasons for disregarding really testimony  l j recites the test and then provides the medical evidence that shows she has no functional limitations in the rest and a couple of other points that would support but no you're right dale b doesn't  art or the regulations i mean we're so used to saying all this medical evidence isn't required i mean suppose these the individuals had just gotten up and testified and the and she had believed them but that's be enough you know it's not enough the regulations require that there must be medical findings and objective data that first show the existence of an impairment and then only then can you look to the did not find that the brain injury was brought to the level of a severe impairment and i think the reason as you say it's a short opinion is that there was simply not enough medical evidence during the relevant period to find that so that's sort of the games up game over i mean it's if he did that right the problem is he didn't explain himself very well that's right i agree there could have been more detail in pain but yes there must be there must be medical evidence first so if so as to just crediting the  lay evidence i guess i mean usually you have medical evidence and then you have evidence as to have the impact of whatever is in the medical evidence and the rule is generally that he can he can discredit if it's inconsistent with the medical evidence or if it's inconsistent with him or her some other reason to just believe it so if there is medical evidence she is consistent with i mean i guess that's what he was thinking that there just was i'm not guessing i'm inferring from the last paragraph last paragraph here on page thirty six of the opinion where he says the medical records are sparse and then goes on to discuss one of dr o'connell's findings in particular that the pain in her wrist that remained following this surgery from years before did not limit her functioning and i read that too as a l j saying we have this testimony about you know that the inability to type for long periods of time we have the claimant's testimony that she can only use her hand for certain periods of the day but there's not enough evidence in the file to show that and in fact there's this contrary finding of functionality and what would be helpful to me is to know watch specific part of the medical evidence from post two thousand you saw it was pertinent should report by dr gore and again it's from another fall and she's hurt herself but what dr gore says is first he recite the history her history her status post cerebral vascular accident her brain injury status post trauma as described so the point is and that's just one example but in the brief it's laid out first the medical records they see that contain her own statements reporting her history but then they record the doctor's own observations of anatomical and physiological abnormalities which are signs of the brain injury the clinical observations are set forth including the anatomical deformities of her left side also the observation of numbness weakness in lack of sensation on her left side also spastic city scissoring gates tilted optic nerves on her left side and complications now again there's nothing his existence i'm sorry was he aware of as if he was aware there's nothing in this section that would tell you that but during the hearing he displayed that he was aware she'd had an accident so it was interesting because the district court in her opinion said oh he was aware of her brain injury and it's resulting complications but what he said in the hearing didn't show any awareness of resulting complications it says what he said at the hearing was i know about a three year old accident i've read about it somewhere i don't want to hear about it and that's the only statement by the administrative law judge about that condition so again i'd like to just address a  couple things the council was talking about inferences that could be made to support the credibility determination the court's recent decisions in brown hunter versus colvin and burrell versus colvin make clear that that does not substitute for the requisite statement of reasons specific clear and convincing reasons for just drawing inferences from the record also does not substitute for a statement of reasons and going back to  the information about how much she worked i think that disability application saying she worked five days a week is probably best viewed as you know that was her last position before she stopped working but the nature of the work she described as she used her hands no more than two hours a day and the vocational expert was very clear that that wouldn't cut it if you're limited to set and terry work and skilled you have to have a good use of those hands further again