[00:00:01] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:00:03] Speaker 02:
Good morning, Your Honor.

[00:00:04] Speaker 02:
May it please the court, I'm Chad Haffield, attorney for Mr. Pumroy and his appeal to social security disability claim.

[00:00:12] Speaker 02:
This is a de novo review of the administrative law judge, ALJ's decision.

[00:00:17] Speaker 02:
Mr. Pumroy, and I would do wish to reserve two minutes for rebuttal.

[00:00:21] Speaker 02:
Very well.

[00:00:23] Speaker 02:
Mr. Pomeroy is a Marine combat veteran with severe PTSD.

[00:00:27] Speaker 02:
And while he does have a varying level of daily interference due to anxiety, depression, and mild to moderate neurocognitive compromise from repeated traumatic vein injuries, his primary basis for alleging disability is the inability to leave his house following nightmares, resulting in rescheduling appointments, changing plans, unable to go to class, inability to complete schoolwork even in his own home.

[00:00:53] Speaker 02:
Dale J. briefly noted that, you know, there was improvements in medication.

[00:00:58] Speaker 02:
The record noted he'd go five days without a nightmare at times.

[00:01:02] Speaker 02:
However, this is not inconsistent with Mr. Pomeroy's contention.

[00:01:07] Speaker 02:
He says debilitating nightmares occurred between a couple per month to a couple per week.

[00:01:13] Speaker 02:
Let's consider the records, an example of CAR 537.

[00:01:17] Speaker 02:
veteran tells you he'll sleep well for six or seven nights and then have a nightmare and is able to get any sleep for two to three days after that.

[00:01:24] Speaker 02:
The importance of this is that the ALJ spent most of the decision and formally his entire RFC based on what he observed on the days when Mr. Pomeroy could attend appointments, days not following the nightmares.

[00:01:38] Speaker 02:
Noted there was tangential speech at times, depression, anxiety at times, but also noted that sometimes

[00:01:46] Speaker 02:
those moderate, you know, depression, anxiety was not as significant in those days.

[00:01:51] Speaker 02:
His RFC then therefore limits interaction with the public and coworkers to occasional and the complexity of the task.

[00:01:59] Speaker 02:
However, that doesn't even address the days after nightmares where he's not able to go even to his mental health appointments, which is a one-on-one interaction with someone he knows well has for a long period of time is known and who is trained to know how to interact with someone with mental health impairments.

[00:02:17] Speaker 02:
He's also not even able to do his homework, which is done within the confines of his own home.

[00:02:22] Speaker 02:
So a limitation to occasional public, coworkers, or complexity of tasks does not begin to address his primary symptom for which he alleges disability.

[00:02:37] Speaker 02:
For every notation the ALJ provides for improved medication, for example CAR 800,

[00:02:44] Speaker 02:
Patients' PTS nightmares were noted to be increasing in severity after initially improving on medication.

[00:02:50] Speaker 02:
It goes back, Mr. Pomeroy's briefing is noted in the times where increased nightmares.

[00:02:55] Speaker 02:
Most of the citations to the ALJ uses, though, are in regards to the depression, the anxiety, the more day-to-day interferences he has and not his primary debilitating symptoms.

[00:03:08] Speaker 04:
How do we deal with the activities he does engage in?

[00:03:15] Speaker 04:
That is to say, he seems to have been doing a fair number of things.

[00:03:18] Speaker 04:
Are you saying that his engaging in wrestling, his going to class and so on, he can skip those things?

[00:03:26] Speaker 04:
And so that's consistent with his description of his periodic inability to leave the house?

[00:03:32] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:03:32] Speaker 02:
Like he stated in his testimony,

[00:03:35] Speaker 02:
He'll set his schoolwork aside.

[00:03:36] Speaker 02:
He will not go to classes that allow that kind of flexibility.

[00:03:39] Speaker 02:
Child care, he has someone step in and help him if he's not able to do it.

[00:03:44] Speaker 04:
Was there a period during which he had the kids for like 14 days?

[00:03:48] Speaker 04:
How did that one work?

[00:03:50] Speaker 02:
Well, again, that was during a COVID exposure, a two-week period.

[00:03:55] Speaker 02:
Again, not really inconsistent with having two bad nightmares per month, but he also said he has help for those days where he can't handle it.

[00:04:04] Speaker 02:
is family support.

[00:04:05] Speaker 02:
It's very different than a workplace where there's an expectation to be there every day and a minimum level of performance that must be done each time.

[00:04:12] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:04:13] Speaker 04:
Yeah.

[00:04:13] Speaker 04:
No, I get that.

[00:04:14] Speaker 04:
Yeah.

[00:04:15] Speaker 01:
So, counsel, I did have a question for you about some of the notes from Dr. Consato.

[00:04:23] Speaker 01:
It seems to me that there's at least I'm confused if there was

[00:04:27] Speaker 01:
If there were two visits or one, I guess is what I'm saying.

[00:04:30] Speaker 01:
So I'm gonna direct you to page, I think it's 671 of the record and then 681 of the record.

[00:04:39] Speaker 01:
And both of them are Dr. Consato's notes on your client.

[00:04:46] Speaker 01:
One is dated, I think June 4th, 2021.

[00:04:50] Speaker 01:
And one is dated January 28th, 2022.

[00:04:57] Speaker 01:
And it seems to me that these are actually the same visit, that they have the wrong date on the top.

[00:05:04] Speaker 01:
I'm guessing when it was generated off the system, just a date gets put on, almost like an auto date on the notes.

[00:05:11] Speaker 01:
And this could be important to our decision.

[00:05:13] Speaker 01:
Can you talk about whether or not you know if these two are actually referring to separate visits or it's the same visit?

[00:05:21] Speaker 01:
And I can give you some reasons why I think it's the same visit, but you may know the answer better.

[00:05:27] Speaker 02:
Well, I'll say for first, it's not gonna be when they're generated because the data's appear on the left side above the patient's name.

[00:05:37] Speaker 02:
So that would be the date of treatment.

[00:05:41] Speaker 01:
The reason why I ask is because all of the data on the forms other than the date is identical.

[00:05:48] Speaker 01:
The BMI is identical.

[00:05:50] Speaker 01:
The temperature is identical.

[00:05:52] Speaker 01:
The age is identical, which can't be right, because one's almost a year later.

[00:05:57] Speaker 01:
So I have some suspicions that there may be some confusion in the record as to whether there really was a post-surgery visit or just one pre-surgery visit.

[00:06:08] Speaker 01:
I'll ask you this way.

[00:06:09] Speaker 01:
Is there any other evidence other than this document dated January 28, 2022 that suggests there was a visit after the surgery?

[00:06:17] Speaker 02:
Yes, in March of 2022, CAR 38 and 64 through 70.

[00:06:23] Speaker 02:
We have that one, we have September of 21, CAR 684 to 687 on those ones.

[00:06:39] Speaker 02:
And there it was talking about following the surgery, they did have some improvement with pain

[00:06:46] Speaker 02:
but not with the numbness that came with activity.

[00:06:51] Speaker 04:
But the question is really whether the January 28 is the same as the June 4.

[00:06:59] Speaker 04:
And I'll just follow on with what Judge Owen said.

[00:07:02] Speaker 04:
It's verbatim the same.

[00:07:03] Speaker 04:
Every word, every comma, every capitalization is the same.

[00:07:12] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:07:12] Speaker 02:
I mean, it's a specialist.

[00:07:13] Speaker 02:
I'd say a copy and paste.

[00:07:18] Speaker 01:
I mean, even the pulse is the same.

[00:07:20] Speaker 01:
And I mean, I give blood three times a year and my pulse is never identical every time, nor is my weight, unfortunately.

[00:07:31] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:07:33] Speaker 02:
So, yeah, it may be laziness by the provider.

[00:07:38] Speaker 02:
I mean, I can't say that that doesn't look like a cut and paste of the hipster present illness on doing this.

[00:07:45] Speaker 02:
I would say though it does have

[00:07:47] Speaker 02:
The following surgery, September of 2001, did show that was having decreased motor strength, decreased pin-brick sensation in both hands, and positive tenels signed present in both wrists and ulnar grooves.

[00:08:06] Speaker 03:
Mr. Hatfield, may I interrupt you for a second and get to the question of the carpal tunnel syndrome situation?

[00:08:14] Speaker 03:
Do you have any criticism of the ALJ's finding that the active daily tasks were well performed?

[00:08:28] Speaker 02:
Well, yes.

[00:08:29] Speaker 02:
Mr. Pomeroy is not stating that he can't use his hands.

[00:08:34] Speaker 02:
His complaint said he said he would do his daughter's hair.

[00:08:36] Speaker 02:
He would do daily activities and then have to rest his hands for 15, 30 minutes due to decreased sensation numbness, which is consistent with the SSA's definition of occasional handling and fingering.

[00:08:50] Speaker 02:
So it's not that he can't do some of these tasks and he did say pain did improve after the surgery.

[00:08:55] Speaker 02:
It's just the numbness.

[00:08:57] Speaker 02:
will restrict him for how long he can do it and the persistence he can do it.

[00:09:01] Speaker 03:
Do you have any claim that the ALJ did not consider the subjective symptoms stated by the applicant and did not rebut them absent any malingering by any objective evidence?

[00:09:19] Speaker 02:
Yes, that's correct, Your Honor.

[00:09:21] Speaker 02:
And also, I'd argue with the date of onset, the ALJ used the date of the EMG

[00:09:26] Speaker 02:
to stay with diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome.

[00:09:29] Speaker 02:
But we see, and part of the reason he stopped work in the beginning was due to problems he couldn't handle his firearm, his difficult manipulation.

[00:09:37] Speaker 02:
December 2020 was noting CAR 569 numbness to his fingers.

[00:09:43] Speaker 02:
At that time, it was just not sure whether it was due to his elbows or due to carpal tunnel syndrome.

[00:09:49] Speaker 02:
And so the evaluation of the EMG was only to say, hey, this is carpal tunnel to identify it, but that should not have been the onset of symptoms or the start of the durational 12-month period.

[00:09:58] Speaker 02:
So that was a clear error on behalf of the ALJ to try to set that timeframe when these were complaints that were addressed long before.

[00:10:08] Speaker 02:
The ALJ really just didn't address it.

[00:10:10] Speaker 02:
The only thing the ALJ addressed was this timeframe.

[00:10:13] Speaker 01:
Counsel, you're going into overtime.

[00:10:14] Speaker 01:
I'm going to ask you a question, but I'm going to give you some time for rebuttal.

[00:10:18] Speaker 01:
I think one question I have, and I imagine my fellow panel members may as well, is any attempts to mediate this case, or would you be interested in going into our court's mediation program, which has success in these types of cases?

[00:10:35] Speaker 01:
You don't need to give an answer now if you want to think about it, and then get back to us during rebuttal.

[00:10:38] Speaker 01:
I'll give you two minutes for that.

[00:10:41] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:10:41] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:10:42] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:10:42] Speaker 01:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:10:51] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:10:58] Speaker 00:
May it please the Court, my name is Michael Mullen, and I represent the Commissioner of Social Security.

[00:11:02] Speaker 03:
Would you get closer to the microphone?

[00:11:04] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:11:05] Speaker 00:
Let me lift this.

[00:11:13] Speaker 00:
Okay, we'll try that again.

[00:11:15] Speaker 00:
May it please the court.

[00:11:16] Speaker 00:
My name is Michael Mullen and I represent the Commissioner of Social Security in this matter.

[00:11:20] Speaker 00:
I'd like to clarify a couple points with respect to the ALJ's finding that Appellant's carpal tunnel syndrome was not a severe impairment.

[00:11:29] Speaker 00:
Not only did the ALJ's decision show that Appellant's carpal tunnel syndrome did not meet the durational requirement, but also that it improved with treatment.

[00:11:36] Speaker 00:
I'd like to return to your point.

[00:11:38] Speaker 03:
I have some questions about that, Mr. Mullen.

[00:11:41] Speaker 03:
And the ALJ apparently found that he could do the daily tasks.

[00:11:50] Speaker 03:
They were exceptionally demanding activities of daily living.

[00:11:54] Speaker 03:
And he was doing fine taking care of his two young daughters, shopping for grocery, doing the laundry, et cetera, in 2020.

[00:12:03] Speaker 03:
But the testimony by Mr. Pumroy in March of 2022 was quite different from that.

[00:12:12] Speaker 03:
He said he couldn't even tie the ponytail on his daughter's hair.

[00:12:16] Speaker 03:
That's not really taking care of his two daughters.

[00:12:19] Speaker 03:
He could not carry grocery bags without looping them around his wrist.

[00:12:23] Speaker 03:
That's not really doing the shopping for groceries.

[00:12:27] Speaker 03:
He was unable to fold his daughter's laundry.

[00:12:30] Speaker 03:
That's not really doing the laundry.

[00:12:32] Speaker 03:
He couldn't mow the yard, hadn't done it for a couple of years.

[00:12:36] Speaker 03:
It sounds to me like what the ALJ did was consider

[00:12:42] Speaker 03:
the daily tests before he heard the subjective symptoms in 2022 and did not find anything indicating malingering.

[00:12:54] Speaker 03:
So therefore he was required to make findings of objective evidence in the medical records to rebut the subjective symptoms.

[00:13:04] Speaker 03:
And that's what I don't think he did.

[00:13:06] Speaker 03:
Can you help me out on that?

[00:13:07] Speaker 00:
Certainly, Your Honor.

[00:13:09] Speaker 00:
One is that the appellant's subjective complaints were inconsistent with not just the activities of daily living that you were just discussing, but also, for example, objective medical evidence.

[00:13:19] Speaker 00:
So I would point you to, for example,

[00:13:23] Speaker 00:
page 694, 691 to 694 of the record, where following the surgery, a pellet had 5'5 strength in the upper extremities, had full range of motion in the elbows with minimal pain, was pleased with the results of his surgery.

[00:13:38] Speaker 03:
And again, that objective medical evidence is inconsistent with the inability to, for example... But he didn't cite those portions of the record, did he, in rejecting the subjective symptoms?

[00:13:51] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:13:52] Speaker 00:
So if you look at the decision as a whole... Yes or no?

[00:13:54] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:13:55] Speaker 00:
The ALJ did cite those activities.

[00:13:56] Speaker 00:
Where?

[00:13:57] Speaker 00:
For example, on page 21 of the record, and in the ALJ's decision, he talks extensively about the activities of daily living, and then he also goes on to talk about appellant's improvements through surgery.

[00:14:07] Speaker 00:
So to give a short timeline on those improvements through surgery, appellant was complaining of numbness in the hands as early as October 2020, and you see that in the record at page

[00:14:21] Speaker 00:
And then he was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome in June 2021.

[00:14:27] Speaker 00:
when EMG confirmed that he had carpal tunnel syndrome.

[00:14:32] Speaker 00:
In September, he had surgery on the right upper extremity.

[00:14:35] Speaker 00:
And that was not just carpal tunnel surgery.

[00:14:37] Speaker 00:
It was also median nerve.

[00:14:39] Speaker 03:
I noticed on page 21 that you just cited me to, there were several mentions of 2019 and 2021.

[00:14:46] Speaker 03:
But there's no mention of anything after his testimony of March 22.

[00:14:53] Speaker 00:
The date last insured in this case was January 31st, 2021.

[00:14:58] Speaker 00:
And so, worsenings of symptoms past, you know, in 2022 and beyond are really irrelevant to this case.

[00:15:05] Speaker 00:
Say that again, Clark.

[00:15:07] Speaker 00:
The date last insured in this case was January 31st, 2021.

[00:15:12] Speaker 00:
And so, evidence of any worsening of symptoms following

[00:15:15] Speaker 00:
you know, into 2022 is really irrelevant in this case.

[00:15:19] Speaker 00:
But again, looking at the evidence in 2021, for example, there is good evidence of him continuing to engage in robust activities of daily living during the relevant period.

[00:15:30] Speaker 00:
For example,

[00:15:36] Speaker 00:
Page 663 of the record, dated in July 2021, where he's endorsing that he enjoys activities and hobbies such as wrestling, fishing, caring for his two acres of land, utilizing a boxing bag, going to the gym, lifting weights, other medical evidence from, for example, August 21.

[00:15:54] Speaker 00:
August of 2021 shows that he was gutting and cleaning fishes with his kids.

[00:15:59] Speaker 00:
That's page 815 to 817 of the record.

[00:16:02] Speaker 00:
So he was engaging in activities of daily living during the relevant period that were inconsistent with the alleged severity of his symptoms.

[00:16:10] Speaker 00:
And again, there might be different readings of that, but deference is owed to the ALJ's findings as a highly deferential standard of review.

[00:16:15] Speaker 04:
What do we do with the complaints of PTSD and the disabilities that flow there from?

[00:16:21] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:16:21] Speaker 00:
That's a good question.

[00:16:22] Speaker 00:
This was something that opposing counsel was touching on during his presentation, and I took note that really what he was saying was inconsistent with this court's guidance in, for example, Molina, where it explains that the ability to perform an activity may suggest some difficulty, but doing the activity itself suggests greater ability than actual disability.

[00:16:43] Speaker 04:
No, let me make the question more pointed.

[00:16:46] Speaker 04:
It is that on some days, and in his view, too many days, he's going to be disabled.

[00:16:53] Speaker 04:
When he's good, he can do it.

[00:16:55] Speaker 04:
But there are going to be too many days in which he just can't do it because of the PTSD, the nightmares, and so on.

[00:17:00] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:17:01] Speaker 04:
How do you respond to that?

[00:17:02] Speaker 00:
And that's where I was going with that, was that, for example, he alleges that he had nightmares at a frequency that made it difficult for him to attend college classes.

[00:17:09] Speaker 00:
But he was enrolled in college for 18 months as a full-time student, and in his own words... Wait, wait, wait.

[00:17:15] Speaker 04:
You can be enrolled and you can be a full-time student in the sense that you're required to pay full-time tuition.

[00:17:20] Speaker 04:
That doesn't mean you're going to class every day.

[00:17:22] Speaker 00:
That's true, Your Honor.

[00:17:23] Speaker 00:
But in Appellant's own words, he did testify that he performed decently in his college courses.

[00:17:32] Speaker 00:
I mean, he may have had some difficulty, and that's why I'm drawing the allusion to Molina here, because yes, he may have struggled with math and science classes while taking classes to become a nurse, but nevertheless, he performed decently in school.

[00:17:44] Speaker 00:
And the ALJ was entitled to consider his performance in college, particularly when you consider it with all the other activities of daily living that he was involved in.

[00:17:55] Speaker 00:
You know, again, if he was struggling to leave his house, he was still actively involved in a wrestling league.

[00:18:01] Speaker 00:
He testified that he was still caring for his daughters and taking them to appointments.

[00:18:05] Speaker 00:
thus leaving the house.

[00:18:07] Speaker 00:
And I would also, I would draw you to the exact language that he used in his function report where he said that he can't leave his house, quote, unless necessary.

[00:18:18] Speaker 00:
And again, that's why I think that the comparison to Molina is so important here because

[00:18:22] Speaker 00:
It may have, I don't doubt that it was difficult for him to leave his house, but he was able to do it when necessary and that's the level of function that the ALJ considered and that's the level of function that the ALJ found was inconsistent with the alleged severity of his symptoms.

[00:18:36] Speaker 00:
And again, to your point, Your Honor, I'd like to quickly get back to that about the timing of those medical notes that he alleges show that he met the durational requirement.

[00:18:46] Speaker 00:
It is, in fact, based on a misreading of those medical notes.

[00:18:49] Speaker 00:
So I would look at page 6.

[00:18:51] Speaker 04:
You're now talking carpal tunnel syndrome.

[00:18:53] Speaker 00:
I am, sorry.

[00:18:53] Speaker 00:
I wanted to cover that, Your Honor, while I still had time.

[00:18:56] Speaker 00:
Appellant argues that page 682 shows a medical record from January 2022, thus somehow satisfying the

[00:19:04] Speaker 00:
the duration requirement.

[00:19:06] Speaker 00:
But again, that medical note was electronically signed by Dr. Concato on June 4th, 2021 at 1.48 p.m.

[00:19:14] Speaker 00:
You can compare that to other medical records, for example, at page 670 of the record.

[00:19:18] Speaker 00:
And you can see that those signatures just don't line up with Appellant's timeline of the case.

[00:19:23] Speaker 00:
But again, even if a pellet somehow satisfied the duration requirement, the ALJ still reasonably found that he improved through surgical treatment.

[00:19:34] Speaker 00:
That surgical treatment was not just working on the actual carpal tunnel, but it also repaired the ulnar nerve, which was responsible for the elbow impairment.

[00:19:44] Speaker 00:
So a pellet had an elbow ulnar nerve neuroplasty as part of that operation.

[00:19:49] Speaker 00:
You can see kind of a description of those surgical operations at pages 684 and 686 of the record, making that point really clear.

[00:19:57] Speaker 00:
And so even if he met the duration requirement somehow, his symptoms were still improved significantly with treatment, following the treatment.

[00:20:07] Speaker 00:
At pages, like I said, 691 to 694, you can see that he demonstrated in both arms, full range of motion of the elbow with minimal pain, that he had five out of five strength, normal range of motion, that he was, in his own words, pleased with the reports.

[00:20:24] Speaker 00:
After the right arm, he was eager to continue and do his left arm.

[00:20:27] Speaker 00:
His pain was controlled and he indicated that he had improvement and improved sensation.

[00:20:36] Speaker 01:
Can you speak to the idea of mediation in this case, and whether the government would be open to it?

[00:20:42] Speaker 00:
Well, we'd be open to hearing points with respect to mediation, but I don't think that mediation is necessary in this case.

[00:20:48] Speaker 00:
Under the highly deferential standard of review, substantial evidence supported the ALJ's finding that Appellant was not disabled, that his carpal tunnel syndrome was not a severe impairment, that it improved through treatment, and that his robust activities of daily living were really at odds with the alleged severity of his complaints, to say nothing of his

[00:21:06] Speaker 00:
Non-compliance with treatment, using marijuana against his provider's recommendations, which was interfering with the efficacy of his medication and his ability to use medication.

[00:21:16] Speaker 00:
I am out of time.

[00:21:17] Speaker 00:
I'd be happy to answer any further questions that your honors have, but that ends my presentation.

[00:21:20] Speaker 04:
You said mediation is not necessary.

[00:21:22] Speaker 04:
Would the government be willing to engage in mediation?

[00:21:27] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:21:28] Speaker 00:
We're open to mediation.

[00:21:29] Speaker 00:
It's highly unusual in Social Security cases.

[00:21:31] Speaker 00:
But again, it is the Commissioner's position that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision in this case and that this Court should affirm.

[00:21:41] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:21:42] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Counsel.

[00:21:42] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Honors.

[00:21:44] Speaker 01:
Mr. Hatfield, give us a second so you can rise from below.

[00:21:49] Speaker 01:
Your screen's going to pop up here.

[00:21:56] Speaker 03:
Mr. Hadfield, I have a question to ask you based on a statement made by your friend that the worsening symptoms in 2022 are irrelevant in this case because the date of disability is January 21st, 2021.

[00:22:10] Speaker 03:
Do you share that view?

[00:22:14] Speaker 02:
No, Your Honor.

[00:22:17] Speaker 02:
I think that the point made in making was that they were new symptoms that just started after the date last ensured.

[00:22:24] Speaker 02:
but this is the condition that started prior to the date last insured.

[00:22:28] Speaker 02:
It could have started on the day of the date last insured and then continued for years in the future and been relevant.

[00:22:34] Speaker 02:
The example here of a post-op visit of feeling well, being pleased, this is during a time of rest and recovery from post-operative.

[00:22:43] Speaker 02:
I mean, you're not using your hands, you're waiting to see how it goes and showing up and doing this.

[00:22:48] Speaker 02:
The testimony by the claim of how he did afterwards when he started using his hands again is very relevant because the RFC is not supposed to be during a period of rest, how he feels, but how he feels if he's doing work and using the hands.

[00:23:00] Speaker 02:
And that was the problem.

[00:23:01] Speaker 02:
The pain range of motion had improved, and that's what the record had said, but the numbness and tingling caused the breaks.

[00:23:09] Speaker 02:
And that continued on.

[00:23:10] Speaker 02:
And so even if there's a brief period of rest and recovery from surgery, pleased with the result, that would not interfere with the 12-month duration

[00:23:18] Speaker 02:
element.

[00:23:24] Speaker 01:
No further questions.

[00:23:25] Speaker 01:
Unless you have something else, I think we're good here.

[00:23:28] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:23:28] Speaker 02:
I mean, you're asking about mediation.

[00:23:30] Speaker 02:
I agree.

[00:23:32] Speaker 02:
It's very unusual social credit cases.

[00:23:35] Speaker 02:
Here, of course, never turned down the opportunity to discuss and resolve cases to help.

[00:23:41] Speaker 02:
I would say the difficulty would be, of course, even in the lowest range Mr. Pomeroy talked about,

[00:23:46] Speaker 02:
two days per month only, as opposed to two times per week, even if we mediate, say, what percent of the time is, the vocation expert said two days a month is work for close to one and so on, that's too often.

[00:23:57] Speaker 02:
So even at the very minimal bottom end of that range, it'd still be disabling.

[00:24:02] Speaker 02:
So I don't know that we necessarily have to kind of agree on like how often at what range it is, the entire range would be in an area of being preclusive of competitive employment.

[00:24:11] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:24:12] Speaker 01:
All right, thank you both for your briefing and argument in this matter.

[00:24:15] Speaker 01:
It's been submitted.

[00:24:17] Speaker 01:
We'll go ahead and it's almost like you're on a game show, Mr. Hatfield.

[00:24:21] Speaker 01:
Like we'll see you later and you've literally you kind of just disappear from the screen.