of this wire treating physicians and with regards to d l j's evaluation in this wire has been known and reporting on the treating physician opinions to physicians including a pain management specialist dr feldman offered opinions inconsistent percent of an eight hour day because of percent thems of pain and fatigue this is an opinion that is not contradicted by any other position in the file it's also an opinion that was not adequately addressed by the elegy and her depression and to the extent that the l g a addresses dr feldman soft task opinion at all she addresses the fact that he's not a mental health professional but she never addresses the effect of pain and fatigue on this wire its ability to be on task during  work day and so the earlier opinion does not include any reference to depression only involves a reference to pain and fatigue and find that simply based on those factors to be off task eleven to fifteen percent a level to which to the treating physicians testimony and this is standard for that so could we talk about that absolutely judge so the standard two standards apply if there is contradictory evidence specific and legitimate standard applies always remembering opinion from the treating physician for to believe that of dr feldman the treating specialist the commissioner and in his brief indicates that no other physician no consulting physician or state agency even not examining physician was asked about off task because it wouldn't be warranted or that in the pi into it because it wouldn't be warranted that's directly contradicted by the elegies own finding with the l g find miswired would be expected to be off task only five percent of an eight hour day so there's some level of off task behavior that's expected and given the treating physician of pine directly to that issue directly within the subject of his expertise pain particularly that warranted more consideration than that given by the judges really no consideration no force the opinions from dr feldman and dr manson are as the primary care physician are broader than just the off task limitation the l j did give some rationale for as to the actual reasons for that and so your argument forgive me forgive me just to put a bow on that i'm trying to follow you i'm trying to figure out whether or not you which standard you think applies is it your position that even if the specific a legitimate standard applies that the opinion knows not not the chord not me not ms why rick why exactly those opinions were discounted there are other rash janell's that have been given by the l j she looked at the format of the opinion finding it to be a checklist format but position and and so that rationale appears to not be specifically jim and based on substantial evidence the l g found that activities of daily living broadly speaking which he found to include sitting and walking are inconsistent with the positions in the but again there is no why the positions of pine that in this wire can sit stand walk up to about four hours in an eight hour day and there is no indication of what activity of daily living is inconsistent with that this is not  in some of his briefing indicated the case of ford versus all this is not a case like the position and forward someone says they can only their patient can only stand for five minutes at a time and the opinions are not that drastic in this case there are limitations they are inconsistent with full time work but they are not an indication that this wiring is completely debilitated she does retain some level of functioning and it's not inconsistent with that i would like to turn briefly to  this wire act testimony and hearing the judge found that to be not credible she found offered some rationales for that the activities of daily living again were discussed again no analysis of how those are performed or why they are inconsistent with miswired testimony the activities are are remarkably benign the two of these were listed as things like going to church boiling chicken for a pat engaging in self care this is not inconsistent with miswired testimony where she testified that she can sit for about an hour at a time or stand or walk for an hour at a time but need to take breaks during the day to lie down because of pain the inconsistency is are not fleshed out by the l g a and and and they're not fleshed out and they're frankly they're not the e there's simply no inconsistency l j looked at the reasons in this wired left the workforce and found that at least in part it was for a non health related reason and appears to infer that she could have returned to work if she not been laid off but the evidence in the record indicates that although she was laid off there were there were absences prior to that and miswired at least believe that that was a predicate for her terminations the fact that she was absent from work because of medical sentence medical appointments and to tie a bow on that point even the algae finds that miswiring cannot return to her past work and so using that rationale appears to contradict itself the  finds that she can't go back to work but appears to find that she could have worked out there on the date of disability the rationale is not clear i'm convinced thing is required for subjective testimony and certainly not based on substantial evidence here  indicates that she can't do the home exercises with regularity because they're too painful these gaps are are explained and the utilization of those gaps by the judge is simply not  the rationale certainly not clear and convincing in this case judge i see that i'm running short of time and i would like to say as a last minute for about almost there any other questions from the panel doesn't appear there are thank you positions generally agree on the bag houses yes you're right ok the medical diagnosis are all the same basically it's that your consult us don't agree with the degree of disability by the treating physician and that's based on one physical examination and then review of some of the plaintiff's records or the applicant's records correct yes or not that he could perform the ones are listed whose cashier with eight hundred and fifty thousand national jobs office helper with seventy five thousand national jobs in a routing ninety five i have to  were that analysis done today those numbers would be probably close to zero for office helper and routing clerk in for booth cashier there's only are a one hundred and fifty thousand dollars of those jobs in the national u not this wire can reapply if she's not financially eligible for s s i which she did not apply for in this application she cannot reapply her insurance status is expired and essentially this is it  colleague talk a little bit about medication effectiveness and how that wasn't reflected in the opinions of the treating physicians i think it's notable that treating physicians themselves noted the use of medication for example in the use of treatment we see already  and twenty eight dr feldman indicate some side effects from medication so they're clearly aware of the treatment they're not offering these opinions as though medication is not being prescribed or treatment is not being engaged in and to the extent that the argument is that medication has been or treatment has been affective we see ongoing narcotic pain medication ongoing injections and these are not treatments that would be continually pursued in the absence of severe symptoms  just briefly on remedy we are asking this court to remit for a computation of benefits the vocational expert testimony of hearing the very clear treating physician to the pine to limitations which are inconsistent with the stand work they did so in terms of their sitting and standing and walking limitations they did so in terms of the off task in absences and miss wired's own testimony proving the need for intermittent breaks during the day is not consistent with the ability to perform sustained full time work there's no serious doubt a disability d in this case for a computation of benefits would be appropriate here and we would have the court to make that finding unless there are any other st for the questions i see my time is expiring and so i'd open it up to questions if there are any don't look like we have any questions thank you so much for your our thank you both thank you your honor that's the last case that we have on the calendar for today so with that we'll go ahead and stand in