and our next case this morning is collin and verses very  testified at her hearing to limitations that precluded work altogether or most permitted said terri workin under the circumstances sedentary work might have resulted in the application of the grid to allow the claim but the administrative law judge discredited miss colton and found that in this call in and was capable of flight work which is slipping through only policy occasionally and be on her feet for six hours out of a call in the testified she couldn't be on her feet that much and that she would miss a lot of a lot of work because of headaches she had suffered a stroke and blurry vision of diabetes and obss obstructive sleep apnea among other things as we know the testimony of a claimant can't be discredited on the basis of objective medical evidence along now i'm not conceding that the objective medical evidence supported the administrative law judge discrediting the skull and then i'm saying that six seventy nine it's clear that well for four days in a row she told the cousin that he should improve his eating and then according to the administrative law judge cullen went to concerts but there's really not much evidence of more than one concert over a period of at least two and a half years according to the ministry of law judge cullen went on dates but at page five sixty three it well how much time and and what did they do during that time well i don't think we want to go much further down that road the she wanted to volunteer at it animal shelter now there exhibit says it really says that one of her grandmothers wanted her to provide total care for her but she was and gauged in summers unclear respect with another grandmother but to be employable under the social security act you have to be capable of full time work so there's really no basis whatsoever for discrediting claim was limited twenty to fifty percent in her ability to take public transportation and clinton also testified i think it was page thirty  she never had a driver's license the public transportation limitation it's because she can't is she can't do stairs she can't get on a bus is that the reason i don't know not sure i think that it's more  it could be it could be because dr month louisiana it was a fiscal doctor now her psychologist limited precluded her from public transportation all together but what will if we've got let's leave that aside for a second if carmen was twenty to fifty percent limited in taking public transportation the vocational expert testified there to fure off to ask fifteen percent of the had to be a limitation with respect to public transportation and driving in the r c and if it been in there it would have precluded work because if you don't show up for work are if she really doesn't take too turby much count of the whole peripheral vision issue doesn't know it doesn't and it should you have to look for play implications in that certain activities taking public transportation we have even even a more restrictive are we're situated functional passages or are o c we have one case name  the v he is in the courtroom he hears testimony that she has eyesight problems and then but it's not mention to put the eyesight problems in that explicitly mentioned in the hypothetical question put to him when his turn comes to testify and rage down we said all that's all right i have to disagree i have to argue that this scorching make it clear that ragsdale doesn't apply anymore because that's not what the rules of the case the difficulty with it is it has no logical limits it would seem a rock that i mean then why have a hypothetical question right then it would be just th sun's up thumbs down roach that this court is discouraged for so many years is there any other question thank you thank you she was capable of lifting twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently that meets the requirements of late of light work under the social security administration's regulations that is one aspect  in light of her own treating suspicion statement that she did not have balance problems that she did not have problems walking that she was capable of doing the lifting requirements that the l j found her to happen again she said she had balance problems stumbled and caught herself her position said she didn't she said she had headaches every day every week that lasted five days where she could do nothing but lay down she did say that she was limited in her ability to perform daily activities by twenty percent and twenty to fifty percent reduced capacity for climbing and using public transportation i took that to mean that she wasn't going to have a way to get around because she can't get on and off  she can get in and out of public transport that that that is conflating to two separate issues one is the ability to do a job if you're capable of doing the job it doesn't matter if the job doesn't exist near where you are and so i don't think that that is a a question there is frankly no it what the l j noted is that there is no indication in the record that indicated that she did in fact have difficult would have difficulty and taking public transportation doesn't talk about it it's true that she never had a driver's license but that's not since she never had one that's not an impairment related limitation and the reg social security reg act is quite clear she's got no peripheral vision as sardis she she lost her peripheral vision account of the stroke so how is she going to get a driver's license i don't believe that that's that's simply something that never came up in the no fact that was mentioned of there or there and the l j did account for the lack of peripheral vision by limiting her to no driving at work no exposure to workplace hazards stated she had never had a driver's license to l j ask is this something as a result of a stroke she said no and that was never brought up there is said there is the evidence does not indicate that she was to that residual physical impairments from her stroke she just had this second attic dying gnosis and her treating psychologist offered his opinion that her ability to sustain employment was poor or to complete a normal work week or work day even was poor and that was discredited based on  characterization of her daily life as very active which is something of an exaggeration at best put the reason that the l j reflections of those he found that she had moderate limitations he doesn't talk about her having poor inability to to socialize there is no indication that she said i can't go out because i'm my mind it's my mental impairment that keep me from indicated she had poor or severely restricted problems it was always moderate problems  inconsistent with his treatment notes his treatment notes throughout the period that he dealt with her and there i think i was at the district court and this is correctly found that the l jury's decision was thorough thoughtful and fully grounded in the medical evidence and therefore supported by substantial evidence and but the briefly to say something about substantial evidence it's not meaningless boilerplate that we do to fully recited the beginnings of our brief and issues that ms cullen and has has rates well the decision to discredit the treating psychologists opinion was based on characterizing the reports of her daily activities as evidence of a very active lifestyle and again that was really only be seen as an exaggeration based on the record i believe it i activity she said she can get essentially she's capable of like work but in looking at the the psychological look at these what she said is i can't do anything i don't socialize with anyone but my sisters i lie down most of the day because it had excess and in f having going out on dates repeatedly saying she needed to get disability because living in her parents health was crimping her dating life that she needed to get it out what here where it's legitimate for the a l j to look at things she wanted to do out these things the l g a had a hearing where she had the opportunity to do so and she never asked them of that kind of question for details on these things and as far as the opinion of the opinions are concerned if claimant couldn't drive at work she couldn't drive period and the evidence the opinion evidence is that she was limited with public transportation so the as a result of