Why did Nancy A. Berryhill ignore and discourteous available evidence from petitioner and refuse to consider their opinion?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED I. why did Nancy Ri Berryhill LAChY Commiacone | IMPMOPEY ly lanored and diScourtkal QUai lable Cvicky {rom MICEIF And LEONG Sure s OPINian? ~ 2. Why is TEA NG Sources: Ofirians on | SiUeshillSare neva EntiHed conpllirg wei Wd by. My. Special Signi FiCance. a HOW CaN Commi Sror, . 3H con Sv Mary A: Bery Ky en ny Clan Ar Aisabilty de & te roy that Shé ad nit thal there treatig so dri ine me the PIE MPEL F SOU CES Chadd treat or ep #: Why 1S Nancy b, Deroy “ 2h! Quarded Q mohan Judganfte LEply to my Claim lerieting) and fai! 40 Sere documents by Mai! AQhd Cattred rq) } Quring Ce, Cour + {edt & hy WAS Soci al S€Garit (Nan A, PE, 47 / ing DL omighors Out oF Conti? GMP hi) 1aking the 0, Why IS NarCY fh. Bara pil) continously to denia/ my apprval rer my aSability due + my healt isuet And disability that E Om Stvgg lo wit daily , q. Given the ALIS Cons d€ration OF tee £OCKOr'S, Giny Claim thatthe ALLS etC Fandin iS dehacent or Hat be didn't do apaper ard hs itn Fail ? Due %& the fact tat me Plainttl disaprees which WAS het STObd por Ooy fro Shawsio Loot TAS CeE. Why thiS COLE It VL ej, ae ly ti VF CIPTS tS LENG Made by fli ) Q,, Hew! Could be applied thé Correct Igy) iE he is Support d by Subtanhal CUIDACE AAA On foe ott Laud he Hi dnt O10 8 Prper analy ss? OO g, Quoted. Ever if thé Court would pque decidéd the COSE di Eel 4 , it fast give ORYONE HE fa FhE COP SSOHEY Qn GF FIA her ; a Dodingr UCbe SubAsarhel Ci dence Supports Th ra. why vs troy) why 1S te COLE AF Fm nd! Ld rong Quieerded i He court s deaded they bee gh undertake egy yevitw of te (Omir SEONG ICS on or Ober, decidé plarittf Came Wh QOS i+ mut bE “ defer? . that (0. ny was no evidence Of proof Provided Sul. dant, al Vide Supported 4 COM “ne Lepr 4r€ Mohan \udGerment Ctrded? {L.Why GVO WE Cour PEW EIG the cose, bit Brot MOV OOS WAOEMENM FOF ALS lek did FEWEIGH? — 4