dismissed the independent medical expert’s conclusion that Grogan had been suffering from mental impairments during his insurance window on the ground that the medical expert had relied on Grogan’s self-reporting; and the ALJ held that any remaining damage to Grogan’s mental health was due to petitioner’s history of drug and alcohol abuse. Accordingly, the ALJ found Grogan to have had no mental impairment, at all. First, however, if Grogan had a mental impairment that had manifested itself as a disability before the end of his insurance window — even if that mental impairment was diagnosed aftér the window had closed, the Commissioner is responsible for covering the impairment. Loza v. Apfel, 219 F.3d 378, 394 (5th Cir.2000); Culler v. Massanari, 9 Fed.Appx. 839, 842-44 (10th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>) (unpublished decision). Second, although
holding claim of deprivation of right to competent mental health evaluation was procedurally barred because it could have been raised on direct appeal holding that a general statement about how the defendant wanted to introduce evidence of medical or mental impairment to show that the defendant lacked the proper mental state was an insufficient offer  there must be some meat of the actual evidence holding that a mental illness limitation containing the exact language at issue in this case is ambiguous because it does not specify whether a disability is to be classified as mental by looking to the cause of the disability or to its symptoms and thus construed in favor of the insured does not encompass organically based illnesses holding that a defendant who did not raise the issue of incompetency at the first opportunity and who waited over one month after receiving notice of the mental evaluation to request supporting documents was not entitled to a second mental evaluation holding that because claimants mental impairnlent might have manifested itself before she was no longer insured the alj should have included the mental impairment in his evaluation of disability