>> rather than say yes or no to specific, to even show sanctions, i would just give you

one perspective. to my left eye the guy who knows iran far better than i. to my right eye of someone who knows the nuclear account far better than i. what can i contribute to this? what i would suggest is first i know a little bit about dealing with the foreign government as i spent 40 years doing it. and last i know a lot about military engagements because i've been involved in a lot of them. what i would say is figuring out your position, remember that there are many other factors besides the united states and iran in this thing. we rely on other countries to accommodate us by carrying out the sanctions. they're the ones who cut imports of oil, not we. we put penalties on them if they do, but they have to decide going along with us and uploading the penalties is more important than bringing in the oil and such. and under certain circumstances, depending on what the sanctions are, they may or may not at some point go along with us. so that is the devil in the

details. we do need this international coalition. normally -- not only for the sanctions but also -- not at the back but at the front of my mind with everything we do with iran with this issue is if we have to go to military force, because i think that's an extreme importantimportant ly. i think it's alaska possibly. i spent four years in iraq and vietnam. i know what it's like sending our troops into -- whatever you administration does and whatever congress does, we ensure that we are not so out of sync with the rest of the international community that we are isolated test that's going to be a bad place to be if this gets really serious. >> i appreciate that, and the fact is that sometimes in the sanction regime effort you have to lead and to get others to follow, or to join. i shouldn't say follow, but to join. that's been our experience here. then at some point, others lead

and we follow. the european union was on its way to a total oil embargo before we moved in a certain direction that asked for further reductions. so there has been, to some degree in this respect, a concert of efforts. and i agree with you we need to maintain that, but it just seems to me that the simple threat of a new round without that taking its bite well within a certain period of time beyond the breakout period is, i don't understand what the cause for alarm is. dr. albright, we'll give you the final word. >> i don't think it's cause for alarm but i think -- i think they have to be justified carefully, because it's going to be asking allies to do things and even adversaries, if i can characterize china that way. so i think it has to be demonstrated that they are needed and justified.

>> i agree with that and we can definitely do that because we can show where iran and even under the present sanctions regime, has efforts to circumvent. i would simply say, the world watches the slaughter in syria and didn't seem to walk act. so if we want to avoid the use of military force, which i believe needs to be a credible threat on the table as part of the equation, our best way to achieve that with the international community is to have iran feel the domestic and integral pressure that has, as you suggested, the ayatollah and his a dual portfolio come to it decision of that, one that'll has to be abated but given that. >> i would add though that it should be motivated by what happens in october. >> and if october comes and we

hear that we have had some positive substantive negotiations but nothing has ceased. let's say if october came and they said, we're going to stop right now, all enrichment, so let's stop another round of new sanctions, i don't know, maybe that might be something, and then work from there. but if october comes and all we hear, which is what every p5+1 process has largely led to is that we've had discussions and there's been some good environment but nothing substantive has come. how many times of the october 15 do we have? >> i would argue, i guess i would take ambassador sherman at her word. this is the test and if they don't pass it in october, then more action would occur, particularly in congress. >> senator corker? >> thank you. i like that very much line of questioning and i want to thank you again for witnesses as being

here. mr. takkeyh, speaking of october, and we will know soon obviously, but what is it that you think iran's foreign minister is going to say to secretary kerry and secretary sherman? >> my guess is they're going to try to suggest, create a degree of cooperation with the iaea which follows up on the promise of transparency. i think they have been for a long time interested in selling 20% enrichment, and to some extent prime minister netanyahu will remiss in emphasizing 20% when the problem has always been enrichment at 3.5%, and that is taking place at industrial scale in the towns. i wrong in seven trying to sell the 20% for a long time, so i suspect they might table something about 20% exchange for sanctions relief, such as that may not directly involve the united states congress such as swiss accounts and so and so

forth for some aspects of the european commerce. so you kind of come out of that meeting by suggesting some agreements have been made that deal at least with the outer perimeters of the nuclear issue. that would be on, my guess would be on the upscale of what they could offer. >> so back to what senator menendez was asking a minute ago, or talking about, the coalition. i guess one of the important elements, and i know two of you are taking a slightly more cautious approach to sanctions, mr. takeyh may be more aggressive. but an important part of what we're doing is keeping our coalition together. in other words, without the international coalition we have the sanctions that we put in place, candidly don't have the impact that they otherwise would have and i would just ask each of you, from your perspective, tell us where you think that coalition is today, relative to what's going on.

and just add to that, in the event, for instance, these talks are not successful and i think most people here are pretty skeptical about where this is going to go, let's say there isn't something that comes out tangibly very soon, how is the coalition hanging together well and can it go on for long period of time as it is today? >> i would say my experience would be that it's under stress. i mean, europeans are being asked to do more and more, and there's some pushback now that wasn't there a year ago. so i think it's under stress and that's why i think the new congressional sanction should be motivated by what iran does or doesn't do. and i do share your concerns about mid-october because i just thought of this. been listening carefully to ambassador sherman, it appears that what could happen is iran is being asked to respond to the

ramadi proposal that was made, not to come up with a comprehensive framework agreement. and secret enough with the situation where iran response to the proposal which is very limited and the proposal is public now so we all know what's in it. and even if iran suggested that it doesn't get anywhere near what's necessary. so i think the administration needs to push much more firmly about, is iran going to provide in a sense a bottom line in october? and again, this would have to be nonpublic discussions, obviously, but i'd think we do need to know what exactly is going to happen in october and is it the test we think it will be. and i think the world is going to be watching very carefully, and i think what happened in syria is something to pay attention to, that military strikes are not that easy to get

support for right now. and i think the sanctions could be the most important pressure that's brought to bear to get iran to take the steps necessary to solve this. and so i would argue that after october, that it really may be necessary to apply those sanctions or pass the sanctions, in order to then get a deal. >> mr. jeffrey? >> first of all, david is right about the deal and the going imposition. i think there may be some hope for off-line direct u.s.-iranian talks, which the door does seem to be open to come and the president also in his statement the other day did refer to the sort of sanctions that the iranians, i think, want. they would have to be very

significant, verifiable, transparent and meaningful steps. so i think that he at least is thinking about going beyond the proposals and try to find out what their bottom line is. they will want to know what the international community's bottom line is in terms of sanctions, but in terms of your question to coalition. i'm a little bit worried because i think the coalition more than the united states is being wooed a bit by rouhani's performance at the u.n., his various writings and the rest of this stuff, and they are hoping this air of good feelings will move forward. so we have to really educate them a bit that it is actions and not words, and the president has done a good job in this, and the more support he can get from congress on this the better on that. in terms of china in purchasing oil, that's something i think you have to look at the intelligence on on what their options are and what they are. in terms of russia, they have been very unhelpful on the second thing, in some respects, and i think they will exact a

high price for further cooperation with us. so there's some maneuvering back and forth but i think we are at a point where within the next few weeks we can see whether the signs are going in that direction, then the administration left to convince allies, have to convince you, have to convince the american public that it's worth either pursuing a negotiated track, or return to the sanctions with the military option if the iranians start crossing our red lines. >> this morning on c-span2, the senate homeland security committee examine social security disability fraud. at 9:50 a.m. we are live outside u.s. supreme court as the justices prepared to hear a case challenging limits on individual campaign contributions. then live at 10 a.m. eastern the u.s. senate returned for general speeches on the government shutdown and votes on judicial

nominations. >> today a look at humanitarian situation in syria. senator bob casey of pennsylvania who cosponsored legislation to provide humanitarian assistance to the syrian people speaks at an event hosted by the national press club. cli starting at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> the heads of african affairs for the state and defense departments testified today on capitol hill about the situation in somalia. it's live starting at 3 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> you are watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs. weekly feature live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events. and every week in the latest nonfiction authors and books on the booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our website and you can join in the conversation on social media

sites. >> monday, attorney eric conn refused to testify about his role in fraudulent social security benefits claimed. it was called for the settlement security committee examine social security fraud. this part of veering was an hour and 10 minutes. >> gentlemen, thank you for joining us this afternoon. i were briefly introduce the panel of three witnesses, and will begin with dr. david her. thank you.

doctor her, a doctor from west union ohio. next we have dr. bradley adkins, psychologists from pikesville kentucky, and finally srinivas ammisetty, a pulmonary disease specialist who comes to us today from stanfill kentucky, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> thank you. as you may know, our standard practice in investigative hearings is to ask eyewitnesses to be sworn in. to this time i'll ask each of you would you please stand and raise your right hand? [witnesses were sworn in] >> please be seated.

>> dr. herr, do you have any opening remarks? >> no, sir. , i do not. >> dr. herr, do you have any corrections to the statement of facts laid out in dr. coburn's opening statement, or to the facts included in the staff report released by the committee today? >> mr. carper, upon recommendation of counsel, i respectfully decline to answer based upon my fifth amendment rights. >> all right.

is it your intention to assert her fifth amendment right to any questions that might be directed to you by the committee today? >> yes, sir. it is. >> given the fact that you intend to assert a fifth amendment right against self-incrimination to all questions asked of you today by this committee, you are excused. >> yes, sir. thank you. >> dr. bradley, you are recognized for your statement. welcome. >> thank you very much. ladies and gentlemen, my statement will be relatively short. i'm here today to tell the truth. i have nothing to hide.

if the ladies and gentlemen, on the committee have read my testimony, i do understand that it seems like the biggest question regarding my performance or my relationship with mr. eric conn was the rfc's in question. when asked i would be more than happy to eliminate or talk about that, but the biggest thing you asked if i had any reaction to anything that had been said, particularly by mr. coburn, i would take exception to being painted with a broad brush, as being someone who was recruited by mr. eric conn. the fact of the matter is i have no story, no checkered past professional. there have been no sanctions against me, nothing of that kind. and also i was not recruited by

mr. conn. i actually, several years before the rfc incident in question came about, i went to mr. conn. at the time i was a young in my practice. i was trying to build a practice it at the time i actually went to mr. conn, and additional other attorneys in the area and became a vendor for the state of kentucky department of disability determinations. so the fact of the matter is that i was not recruited. i was trying to build a practice and looking for potential referral basis. thank you. thank you. >> you may continue after some of the things you would like to say. i'm, we will hear from dr. ammisetty and then ask questions of both of you, but you are welcome to continue. >> no, sir.

i believe that's all i have to say at this time. thank you to. >> dr. ammisetty. >> senators, good afternoon. i came from india, and i trained in chicago, and then i moved to a rural area in kentucky. [inaudible] i'm the director for a couple of hospitals. i never had any license issues on my practice. i never had any medical legal problems. i never had any legal, personal legal problems. my practice isn't on this practice, and i'm happy with my wife. she's also a clinician. and the place i came from in south india -- almost 250.

it was farming land, three generations of my family worked on farms. [inaudible] three generations of hard work, finally we became professionals -- >> what did you raised on those farms? >> in south india spent no. what did you raise? what did you grow? >> [inaudible]. this is our land, so we moved to america. i moved to america and some of my family members also move your almost 30 members of my close family are physicians successfully practicing here. in my homes we have two girls who are medical students in the

u.s.a. one girl as a fulbright scholar marshall nominee can and my son is the only one in the pike county -- [inaudible] [inaudible] i don't have any problem. i'm happy to answer any questions you have. and happy to answer. i don't have any problems. >> unhappy practice and build up my practice and i am part of the community. i never fail to pay pending bills, collection agency all my life, practice. usually occupations -- but i'm a particular part of the community. around 2002, mr. eric khan was my patient.

during that time he offered me that if you come to my office i can do every business, don't need to practice at all. but i was building my practice and so i refused. and then around 2010, 2010 december, he said he will not be physician, other physician was so sick. so he asked me to do a comprehensive exam for the patients. [inaudible] i accepted. so initially comprehensive and i said it's a good thing to come to my office so i can have a look. i can have better understanding. so he started sending patients

to my office. and i was syncopations. so december 2010. and then around may i was so busy, i mean he's being more demand, writing letters that i need more frequent response and more deadlines, or something. i already have a busy practice. good practice. even though i'm board-certified -- very few doctors in the country rarely board-certified. if i'm looking for money i can start same practice because kentucky is -- [inaudible] i can get -- [inaudible] i can see 40, 50 patients a day. that's a common practice in medication in pike come in kentucky. but i never practice in medication pain practice in my

life. [inaudible] so around that time he was more demanding. slowly i said i'm winging off. i'm worried because -- [inaudible] so i was doing slowly and then at one time he asked me -- [inaudible] for the last two months -- in the meantime, i sublet. ms. slone talked about that. so the rumors came up and i didn't know, even though two months ago next door he was rated by the agents, because that is, i just go and see the

patients coming to the office, see the patients and go and spend my time with my kids, my wife. that's my life. so finally my girls brought me, this is going on with eric conn. and then i reviewed information and then i stopped my practice with them completely. that's not good for me. >> thank you. thank you for that testimony. dr. coburn has offered -- simultaneous with his business committee meeting and the markup of a nomination of the present forget the position at the office of management and budget. we will do both of those at the same time to dr. coburn will stay. is a number of questions to ask both of you and i will be back to join you very shortly. thank you. dr. coburn, thanks. >> maybe i can get these

finished before you get back. well, thank you both for being here. i appreciate you coming. some very concerning things if you listen to our first panel. dr. ammisetty, i've got a list of questions i'll go through with you, but my biggest, have you ever seen the ama guide evaluation for physical disability? >> the physical -- >> have you ever seen the ama guide for speed is definitely. >> to get all that as you on these patient's? >> obviously i didn't follow. >> budgeted for the rest of it? but he did a mental status exam on every patient? >> no, sir. >> why not? >> because complete physical examination. >> that includes a mental status spent mental i did not do anything. >> and it was your testimony and your feeling that the rfc forms were filled out by occupational

therapist? >> yes, sir. >> where did you learn that from? who told you that? >> initially when i started working, syncopations, i told them i'm not -- [inaudible] and also i do the evaluation. that's one reason stated i understand that but my question is, is who told you that occupational therapists did the portion of the exam -- >> aircon and his assistant. we don't need to work on we will take care of that. we'll take care of that. >> india should you ever done by occupational therapist, that's your testimony? >> yes, sir. spent and he communicate that to you? >> yes, sir. >> to on your exams, i have no

doubt that you're a great physician and i didn't say doctor, i said physician because that means you care for the whole person. and i have no doubt your test when you're trying to do mr. conn a favor because he was in a pinch. so i don't doubt the veracity of that. >> thank you. >> and you said in your opening statement, if i followed it, you really were not aware of the size and scope of mr. conn's practice when you started doing these exams for him? >> he had -- outside in the area, and his billboard on the park, social security, ma he is mr. social security. >> okay. and it was your testimony that you quit working for mr. conn in october 2011 in part because of the negative news he was

getting? >> negative news coverage, and also i have beautiful, good practice. and he's suddenly dashing so-called can you see a patient? and i had to hold my other schedule, and also he's demanding he wrote a letter demanding that so i could not -- all these things but you could not meet his demands, but your testimony to our investigators was that after the news broke an investigation started, that's when you quit. but it actually took you five months after the first news story to stop seeing patients for mr. conn. can you explain that? >> that's -- as i told you before, sir, i'm busy with my practice. i go to five hospitals, and i never, i didn't know what's going on next door. next door, that's the one reason. >> so you weren't aware until five months after the major news

story broke that what was being -- >> yes, sir. >> all right. that's all -- let's see. and your testimony was to use all these patients after office? >> yes, sir. >> at no time did you say patient and mr. conn's office? >> he invited me -- he had everything, everything in his office, and he invited me to calm and do, directly invited me to do everything in his office. >> but you said no? >> i said no, because that's not proper practice. >> all right. let me go to the rfc's for a moment or if he did not perform an evaluation on the claim is rfc's, who did? >> from the -- [inaudible] >> you heard testimony that

nobody did those today. they were randomly filled out by his office staff. >> that i can do no, sir. >> so why did you sign them? if you didn't do them, you put your signature on them. why did you do that? >> as we know, as being a physician for many years, we send a lot of patience to home health care, and i didn't go there and the home health care people evaluate and bring it to me, you signed. that's a routine way. and also they said this was a part of the process. part of the process. >> were you unaware of the importance of rfc's and determining disability? >> i didn't know that much about rfc study. if i knew that one part i would not sign as a physician for so many spent in hindsight did you make a mistake signing those rfc's? >> definitely, sir.

>> you did. and i take it from your testimony also that one of the reasons, and i know the relationship here, one of the reasons you help mr. conn that was he was a former patient, is that direct? >> he was a former patient, but yeah, yes, sir. >> that he was not currently under your care, is that direct? >> no, sir. stink all right, thank you. did you ever visit the con law offices of? >> two or three times originally. one time when the great president abraham lincoln statue opened. second time at christmas time it third time about when he got letter come when i got letter i was worried that he, everybody know he awful man. and i never had any legal problems in the country here anyway. and my mentality don't make enemy, just -- so i went there

one time and that's the reason, sir. >> dr. ammisetty, which a look at exhibit 48 in that book sitting next to you. number 48. >> this is 245. >> it's in the next book. >> okay. >> please look at the third page of this document, with the heading physical medical assessment. >> yes, sir. >> did you fill this form out the? >> no, sir. >> do you know who did fill out this form of? >> its office staff after i

dictated my full comprehensive history, and taken on the office staff. and they brought it back to my office to sign, and i signed it. >> all right. how did you know that the information in this physical assessment form was accurate? >> i trusted them, sir. >> in other words, you did not know that it was accurate. you just trusted -- >> i trusted them, sir. >> thanks. >> because if you see, he's attorney and he knows the law. >> all right. that's all the questions i have for you. your job. >> thank you. i really appreciate it, sir. >> dr. adkins, thank you for

being here. >> thank you for inviting me, sir. >> you started working for mr. conn in 2005, is that direct? >> it may have been a little bit before that. i really don't remember the exact date specs a late 2000, 2005. >> or maybe even 2003 spent so possibly 2003? >> yes, sir. >> it is true you do work for the social security administration as well? >> yes. >> how much the social security pay you for an evaluation? >> well, -- >> give me the range. >> anywhere from there's the basic evaluation, basically it just consists of the clinical interview. that, oh, gosh, when i'm under the gun. >> that's okay, it's 80-$175. i'll help you out. and how much we paid to get evaluations i mr. conn? >> well, by mr. conn as most any other attorney, the usual fee

was $350. >> and how much time, on average, did you spend with the claimants for mr. conn versus the amount of time you spent for claimants with the agency? >> if the agency requested just the basic clinical interview, you're looking at, you know, maybe like half an hour, something like that. if the agency, if the agency requested the full battery, that would be the clinical interview plus administration of the iq tests, it would have been equivalent to what it would've taken for mr. conn's patients. spent and that was how much time? >> he always got the full battery. hour and 50 minutes, our, our 15 minutes, 20 minutes, something like that. >> did you perform an mental status exam on every patient who came in to your office? did you perform in mental status exam on the patients that

referred to both from social security and from mr. conn? >> the answer would be no, because when you do the basic evaluation for the state of kentucky, and that included the mental status examination. it was the clinical interview plus the mental status examination. win if i requested -- lawyers always requested the full battery. sometimes the state of kentucky would request the full battery. when the full battery is administered, the administration of the iq test goes above and beyond the mental status examination. no. >> so you did not routinely perform a mental status examination on patient's? >> i did routinely if they were -- >> full battery speak with no. for the full battery, that was the clinical interview plus administration of the iq test. the iq test goes above and beyond a mental status examination so there was no need to do the mental status

examination. >> and iq test demonstrator liability or not reliability of? >> repeat, place. >> does the iq test that you administer, i guess it's a wexler? >> yes. >> doesn't demonstrate client come our patient reliability? >> reliability? no. spent so it doesn't demonstrate reliability, is that your testimony speak was i'm having a hard time understanding how -- >> when you filled out all these form the said every patient that you saw for eric conn had poor reliability. i think of you signed every one of those forms and every one of them had poor reliability spent i think there's a misunderstanding between reliability and validity. when i filled out those rfc's, or i'm so, when the rfc's were

filled out, but even for the artist is that i did you for other entities, and prior to seeing mr. conn's patients, reliability would be, or at least the way i was understanding reliability is, is this person going to be able to consistently be at work on time, consistently perform well at work, consistently be able to finish the day out. are they going to call in a lot? >> great. so if that's what that means, every patient you saw from mr. conn had poor reliability, is that your testimony? >> yes, sir. i think anybody who have a significant mental health problem is going to have poor reliability. >> and every patient you saw for mr. conn had mental health problems? >> every speedy you didn't find one that didn't? >> every single one, i can't say, but i will honestly say that the vast majority of them, yes, i did come in my opinion.

>> how do you explain that on multiple occasions you get one report to the social security administration of a patient's condition and give an officer report to mr. conn, each on the same patient? >> i don't know that that ever happened. >> we're going to demonstrate that it did. on multiple occasions. as a matter fact, the people who are looking at the information would notice -- as a matter fact we had that testimony here on this first panel that they noticed that they would get one report i would say one thing and one report that would say another. >> okay. >> did you perform a symptoms validity test on any of these patients liken mmpi? >> when i first started out in practice, i would indeed do those. but there was at one point i was doing those with every single patient, and the discourse with the department of disability

determination i was told those were not necessary for the -- >> dude member what time you are told that? what year were you told that speak was what year i was told that? no. >> you don't recall when that became not a requirement? >> exactly. >> all right, thank you. if you would, dr. adkins, turn two exhibit 47. the last two medical opinions in the exhibit 47.

spent okay, ma do you want the last two? with debbie adkins number one? -- would that be adkins number one? spent is this document typical of the medical forms completed for mr. conn's clients? >> can i have just a second to look through it? >> sure. >> yes, sir. >> all right. in the background section of each of those reports, typical

patient, is this information included in the section of the report provided by the claimant? >> i'm sorry? >> in the background section, the background section in your report speeders are you talking about dated september 2010 portion? >> yes. >> okay. now, what was your question, sir? >> is this information routinely provided by the claimant? >> routinely provided by the climate? >> in other words, where did you get the information? >> okay. where did i get this information? from eric conn's office spent you didn't get it from the climate? >> well, let me check back here.

okay. there's nothing showing in the actual body of the report. i didn't document the actual date of onset spent i'm not as concerned about onset. i'm asking, you put the background information in this report. i'm asking the origin of the. did it come from the claimant or did it come from mr. conn? >> this piece of paper came from mr. conn's office. >> all right. now, please review the section of the exam titled summary and conclusions, the one over.

>> okay. i'm there. >> all right. i would note first of all that you told committee investigators on the first background information that it came from the claimant, not mr. conn. now, in the section at the end of the report is reserved for your own conclusion, i believe. does this represent your conclusion? >> summary and conclusions? yes, on page 36. yes, sir. >> now please look at the summary section. and let me ask you the question again. the information in the background section came from

mr. conn? >> yes, sir. >> and if you look at the summary section, it seems to be identical to the background section. spink seems to be identical? >> as a matter fact in this particular one the information both sections is word for word identical. so that your summary matches exactly the information according to your testimony that you got from mr. conn. >> wait a minute. i think there's some misunderstanding here. when you say the background section, i'm looking at a document that says, to whom it may concern is my medical opinion, blank out medical conditions and in the patient, is that what we're referring to? >> no. go back to the first question i asked on the background section. i asked you what the information came from. >> oh, i'll. i apologize. i was looking at something else completely. you said about the section. >> that's the first thing you look at. the first thing i had you look at. >> the first thing i looked at

was this i believe. believe. when you said background document whatever was -- >> it has background section. >> background information. okay. >> and who gave you the information, mr. conn or the climate? >> the claimant to give me that information. i'm sorry. >> so now look at the summary section. and it seems that the summary section is exactly the same as the background. >> oh, okay. >> why is that? >> because it was cut and pasted spent why is it cut and pasted? >> well, because when the report was typed, the summary and conclusion basically was, said the same thing as the background information said. it was cut and pasted from my own words, that the claimant, based on information that the claimant had given to me, sir.

>> but this is a medical conclusion. would you agree with that? >> is a psychological pollution. >> well, that's part of medicine, as far as i'm concerned. i think you think so too, don't you ask psychological aspect is part of medicine? >> day -- >> treat psychiatric diseases. >> they in july. i think that psychiatry would be more of a medical decision. >> do you think it is appropriate as a medical professional to copy a claimant's subjective allegations word for word and pass it off as your own medical conclusions? >> oh, i see what you're getting at. this summary and conclusions section is, well, basically it's

exactly what it says it is. it was a spot for me to summarize if somebody wanted to go and just get a quick lowdown of this report, that they could go straight to this section. and in the course of the -- >> so you found no objective findings that were different than the subject of complaints that were given to you by the claimant's? >> there is -- well, let me ask another question. on page nine of this opinion you diagnosed the claimant with a deteriorating disk in his back and neck. >> okay. page nine. yes, those are reported to me by the patient. >> all right. so your medical conclusion is the patient's subjective information, you didn't rely on

any medical, you didn't look at a ct scan or an mri to say that this is confirmed so, therefore, i'm going to put in the diagnosis. it's all subjective going to an objective conclusion, is that correct? >> that would be correct, but i think that's pretty much standard operating procedure in my field. you know, if a patient comes in and says, dr. adkins, -- is coming to me primarily for psychological issues. if he tells me along the way, and i have heart conditions, you know, actually at that time i would have included heart conditions. >> i understand. on this opinion you found the claimant to have an iq of 61, is that correct? >> let me take a look. full scale iq score 61, yes, sir. >> what's average? >> average iq would run

something like 80-120. >> and so how is it you also found this claimant with an iq of 61, two standard deviations below normal, had no problem managing his money? >> well, the intelligence scale, sir, they are based on a lot of speech i understand. to get asking any any questions about handling money in your interview with tim? >> not in particular, no. >> so how would you know if he had any problems handling his money if he didn't ask him? >> based on his presentation. based on his conversation. based on his iq scores. an iq score of 61 does not necessarily indicate speeds i didn't say that. i asked you did you ask many questions to simply writing to your assumption that he couldn't handle money? >> no.

>> look at page 11 of the same document. exhibit 47, page 11. >> okay. the document that says september 1, 2010 at the top of that? >> yes, sir. >> as the one i was looking at when i was confused spent a very short signed statement of which you should without any explanation that the claimant medical conditions and limitations would not be significantly different as a favorite 15, 2005. >> yes, sir. >> so you're asserting that his status is totally unchanged from 2005? >> i did sign to that, yes. >> did you happen to encounter this patient in 2005? >> no, sir. >> so this was your first interface with this patient?

>> the date of the examination is dated as september 1,2010. >> do you have any idea why you would assert that putting this into a document like this? were you asked to put this in the document speak with yes. >> who asked you? >> somebody from eric conn's office. >> do you know who? >> i do not know the particular person, sir. >> and was that before you saw the patient, or after you saw the patient? >> it would've been after i saw the patient. >> it was after you saw the patient? >> yes. >> all right. and you had never seen this patient before, to your knowledge? >> not to my knowledge. >> now turn to page 12 of the same document. spent that would be the rfc form, correct? >> yes, sir. did mr. collins from provide

this to you? >> yes, sir. >> when the form is provided to you, sections one, two and three already filled out? >> i'm going to say that i'm quite sure that they were. >> all right. and then you are asked to sign those? >> yes. >> all right. why did you not fill out the entire form your self? >> because i did not know, number one, that this was to be completed only by the professional who do this. i had no idea the role that this little form played into the determination process. >> do you routinely fill out these forms or other lawyers you do psychological evaluation forms for? >> yes, sir. >> do they ever send and he prefilled out? >> no, sir. spent so you didn't know that this is part of the vibration

process? >> they look different from each attorney, that they came from. you know, let's see, mr. conn here was one, two, three pages long. some of them were only one page long but it seems like the primarily, you know, the same questions that they were in different formats, different layouts. and none of them said anywhere, you know, this is an official u.s. government form. this is going to be used for this. i did not know at that time that it was used in the actual decision-making process. >> so then it would be, you were unaware that a medical assessment ability to do work related activities would've been in a valley when some resisted those? >> no, sir. i was not aware that at that time. i thought they were used in office, in house spent on all the forms we reviewed that you

signed, you checked the claimant demonstrate a poor reliability. so everyone that mr. conn sent you demonstrated poor reliability? every patient that you saw from mr. conn demonstrated poor reliability? >> i think that if the patient was diagnosed with a significant mental illness be did you didn't fill out the form that said that. you just sign the form. so are the forms right or wrong? all these forms right? you didn't fill them out. you just assigned them. either right or wrong? >> there are some that could be better. in retrospect. >> are they right or are they wrong? you didn't fill them out. i'm not holding you responsible for filling them out. i'm asking to you signed them. either right or are they wrong?

>> some of them all right and some of them are wrong spent with your signature on them? >> yes, sir. i can give a broad, sweeping answer spent given that the form is already completed when you received it, you did not go through to see if the forms i should reflected your exam, is that correct? >> there were -- >> i'm talking these forms. >> these rfc forms? >> yes. you did not go through the forms to see if you actually reflected your examination? >> i did go through them but i never saw anything that jumped out at me as something being, something that i would disagree with spend so you just can't you just told me that somewhere right and some are wrong, now you're telling me that not any of them or anything that you would disagree with. >> no. what i'm telling you is that i did not know the significance of these forms when i was tiny

them. if i had known the significance of them, i would've been more diligent in comparing them to my reports. >> but your testimony is no other lawyers sent you a prefilled out for? >> yes, sir. >> all right. given that the form is already completed when you received it, -- i've covered that. we have testimony to the committee that he didn't look at the forms at all, that you just sign them and took checks because they were brought to you when you are paid. is that correct or not? >> that's not correct. >> all right. besides the mental assessment form that we saw in exhibit 47, the committee reviewed 30 additional psychological evaluations that you perform for mr. conn between july 2007-2010. the mental assessment form that

you filled out or signed, you didn't fill out on exhibit 47. was identical in all 31. spent yes, sir. i understand that. >> do you think there's a problem with that? >> in retrospect, yes. >> all right. this particular form had 15 questions with five answers each. do you think it's likely that 31 people would end up with a form filled out exact same way? on not blaming you for not noticing how they were filled out. i'm not trying to go there. i'm just saying do you think it's likely that 31 would end up filled out exactly the same way? >> with this population, speed is exactly the same way spent exactly the same way.

.. >> this is on a child 8 years of old at the time of his assessment in 2007. do you use a different approach when you examine a child instead of an adult? is there a difference in your approach? >> the difference in my approach would have been observing the child while he was -- he or she was in