the overriding flaw in this case is the almost impossible burden of proof imposed by the commissioner and the traumatized veteran to prove disability a federal agency i might add in short with a mission of protecting its citizens from falling hearing found that with medication diversion it often deficiencies of concentration and without medication the limitations became frequent for trying to listen levels severity treating mental health provider chandler and psychiatrist dr callback agreed at medication if depends who makes that determination on their star eighty two fifty nine it has to be the treating source social security can't say for the veteran because i know an examining physician says you have to take a medication specialist psychologist then you're required to enter the if you thief the fifth you know and there are a few different requirements two has to be one have treatment it's clearly expected to restore capacity  a requirement to and that wasn't done as well and so this is the first time that the hearing that the initiation took this position based upon the testimony of the treating  work the also the psychologist opinion that medication would improve the veterans condition was  public and coworkers and even dr sutherland who the magistrate relied upon said he can function a little restriction except when it requires him to be around others he actually says guarded has a history of fighting has faced him self submitted post hearing that fact if you look at the evidence presented both the east when it comes down to it find that given the l g s hypothetical a hypothetical claim it could not sustain employment limitation also the l g a presented that individuals the result of his work spirits this could hardly be civil to southeast asians where it's important to work like a work situation and in response is hypothetical testified she could not guarantee he would not be exposed to southeast asians in the jobs of pows and she did not ask that this next as to how many southeast asians there would be working in a job in oregon or washington that's step five that decision is should be given anyway in this particular case the l g didn't do that i meant that we didn't raise that issue at the district court however the ninth circuit hadn't made that decision at that point and we their ratings in this case on page one hundred seventeen of the transcript we have the v a rating that's seventy percent that's the first specifically twelve loss of income earning potential the way the v a works you that's right the interesting thing about the veteran's rating here though and again i refer the court to page two hundred seventeen of the transcript and that's very visible also on the excerpts of record up on the right hand corner at the bottom of the page the veteran administration says that employment may be possible with treatment and that's exactly what dr hart the medical expert said during the hearing as he carefully examined the record and observed the claimant first hand his demeanor and he found that he had great capabilities that there would be possibilities of treatment and on that basis he sets a functional limitations concededly it's going back some years to september of ninety seven when his insurance  no this is the kind of case that could be amenable to treatment and with treatment there was functional limitations that would permit work so there's actually a correlation between what the veterans administration said with a seventy percent rating and with what dr to give jermaine reasons to reject a witness i let me refer to our credentialing program in our regulations credentials or favored a reasonable person might well do that i think when this court chooses its clerks you rely heavily on credentials and most people would try to make a decision without actually having the experience of knowing of knowing everything so the credentials do advise how much weight should be given the opinion what we have this nurse chandler is  i agree that you can perform many were true but the a l j rejected nurse chandler's opinion and relied on the medical expert as substantial evidence i mean there may be reasonable minds can differ and relied upon the ve as well but the ve responded to a hypothetical premised on the limitations set forth by the medical experts and that's a substantial evidence so much of this case is typical of our cases it's looking back in time and it's trying to decide hypothetically what someone might be able to do with a certain time and i reach that the best way to tell is call in a neutral expert medical expert and i will clerk if you will help go through the record and give us  professionals opinion and that's what happened here as far as the second occasional expert the appeals council gave it short shrift i wish they had and i would like reasons always but under the government's decision they can give  short shrift the decisions for civically says there's no need for the appeals council to comment on vocational evidence arriving after an adverse decision so there's a reason for that it's because after an adverse decision things that ar e later begin to have the appearance or the possibility of correcting a record or advocacy so they aren't quite as powerful as the on the spot evidence that comes the first time so rely on gomez that's that's what we asked for under the ramirez decision does the appeals council have to give more analysis to the later opinion of of nurse chandler again that came in after the l g s decision well remember is dealt with a physician again mr chandler was not even cosigned at that point by physicians moreover her statements didn't progressed september thirtieth one thousand nine hundred seven when they had pressed was in general it's difficult to have medicaid of treatment for post traumatic stress