of october eighth two thousand and eight was forty three years ether ten months her application date was april ninth two thousand and twelve her date last ensured december thirty first two thousand and thirteen the judge's decision was january of fourteen that's precluding her from any further application for title two benefits i'm going to cut to the chase and skip a lot of the argument that i think sickly been outlined here and and just address the two primary issues this is a fairly straightforward and simple case we have two issues before the court one is credibility and in this particular case we have somebody who reported pain and under the social security rules and case law and indicates that your depth of subjective complaints of pain cannot be simply dismiss there has to be some assessment in this particular case misspeaks suffered from the rop of the which was noted repeatedly in the record by physician she was a type two diabetic and was having pain and problems and joints associated with her diabetes she had asked your throat it's in the neck and shoulders she received steroids injection this is all the kind of stuff that would readily support somebody who's claiming that she's got subjective pain so there is an objective basis for the condition and that's the general standard if you can have objective evidence that would support pain is likely then assessment of pain is necessary if the judge in this particular kid's made to finding space difficultly on credibility there are some that are implied by his assessment of the medical did she let herself the shopping for only ten minutes this is not necessarily the type of activity that readily translates into the who are whose responsibility was it to develop according to the case law on this is an argument i've made at it and says i think this might be a problem and doesn't ask that would leave it to the counsel for the applicant to try to read through many times and thousand pages of records and this and try to guess what things the judge may necessarily her shopping we i actually this is one of the few cases where i actually handled the area and it's a normal practice to go through how do you spend your day what kind of activities do you do but nothing was specifically address it just seemed odd to me that the judge in this particular case wouldn't have the human assessed his own credibility and daily activities and talked about what her testimony was stead rely on the state agencies doctor's assessment who never had an opportunity to see the claimant and never had any opportunity to see all of the other information and some earth the time doctor course she did her sussman there was a couple of years worth of additional records that were in the file that were never reviewed by doctors or she the second point that the judge made on credibility was that she had and i guess the best way to characterize it is candid answers well first of all the judge never elaborates what he found to be overly prepared answers he doesn't apply and there's a believe it's a record age fifty six he was surprised when he asked how high her feet need to be el and she said twelve to fifteen inches and his comment was well that's rather precise well that might be the case and that's what the judge is referring to as being uncredible it's surprising that that exact limitation was included in his residual functional capacity assessment so he didn't find it completely unbelievable because he adopt it if it's something else we have no idea what it is i should also point out that if you look at the transcript itself in the exhibit list in the transcript the numbers exhibit start with b that indicates that there was a prior application so in essence since there was a prior air hearing that was remanded in the next hearing unless it's not supported by the record and it's not and it's inconsistent with with the record and with the normal diagnostic techniques that you can look through as i pointed out in the record have been nice if there were then an m r i but when you look at the record and see the number of times where they're complaining about the fact that she can't get treatment because she has no insurance it seems rather difficult to believe that  medical facility would be volunteering to give her an m r i the judge in this particular case keep true reasons then for discounting doctor  exhibit b thirteen f that's incorrect the judge or the dr webster specifically indicated that the need to elevate her leg was based on a demon that was painful and that now the deconditioning aspect which is the second part she need unscheduled breaks because of deconditioning while she's decondition because she had severe problems with her neck resulting in trigger point injection and her inability to get or obtain the kind of pain medication she normally would have needed in order to deal with these then so so really this is where the crux of the idea exactly what weight he actually gave it other than he adopted of large parts of the dr webster's opinion but excluded the parts that would have resulted in the finding of disability without any explanation didn't good morning and please the court my name is meredith shot and i represent the acting commissioner of social security and i disagree with counsel's indication that there are only two points for each of algy's findings i agree that the two issues that the two matters at issue are credibility in treating physician the l j however provided several supportable and appropriate reasons for their for his findings with regard to credibility of the l j specifically identified ms spears demeanor and appearance during hearing this is a recognized appropriate reason to assess credibility there is great deference given to the l g s observation of the individual during hearing for the precise reason that appearance and demeanor and tone during hearing are represented in the hard transcript of the hearing and the l j is the individual who had the opportunity to observe those things and to assess their impact on the credibility of the testimony given  the l j though also noted other reasons for his credibility determination he noted that her alleged limitations were not supported by objective medical evidence that is not not supported by imaging but also not supported by clinical examination there's very little to suggest the significant limitations that she alleges suffering  the l j then also noted misty's daily activities and that those were not consistent with her extreme limitations and he didn't just consider this in the context o did notice that no to the doctor course she also recognized that the inconsistency between the alleged activities and the asserted limitations does she have both arthritis and the abuse she does have diabetes there is not much in the record about arthritis but the l j accepted that there was sufficient evidence to to establish that she did have the osteoarthritis and certainly those could have produced limitations your honor but missed speeds was asserting very significant limitations here she said she could walk for maybe five minutes that's what she said it hearing she could stand for ten minutes she could only sit for ten minutes these were significant limitations she said she could testify that she was dropping gallons of milk she couldn't lift anything greater than that that there were days she couldn't even lift her arms however that's not reflected in any of the medical records certainly her complaints of pain were reflected but there's never any indication in the medical records that she should be treated with something greater than over the counter pain medications and one instance she was prescribed muscle relaxant which she took for a little while as counsel pointed out on one instance she received trigger point injections to address her pain she she received those in two thousand and nine there's no indication that she stopped them again there's no indication that any doctor opined that th were needed again and that they should she should receive them the records indicate that she was treated with over the counter medication and despite her complaints no doctor recommended any more significant  any more significant treatment than that counsel suggested that that claimant couldn't get the medication that she that she needed she had an inability to obtain pain pain medications but there was no indication in the record that additional pain medications were recommended or that she was unable to obtain medication that was recommended certainly she had financial difficulties but she obtained all of her other medications through patient assistance and there is no indication that she was unable to obtain necessary care with regard to the treating physician opinion dr webster's opinion the l j also provided several reasons appropriate reasons for discounting that opinion  first the l j noted that dr webster's opinion appears to be based entirely on ms speed is subjective report says this court has frequently acknowledged that is that if the subject of reports are determined to be unreliable an opinion based on those subjective reports is also appropriate leave found unreliable and this case the l j noted that the exam findings from that doctor from dr dr webster's exams did not support her conclusions there's nothing in the exam findings that explain her conclusions in fact dr webster noted that she did not have sufficient information to assess ability to lift to walk to stand she acknowledged dr webster acknowledged that she did not have sufficient information to assess the impact of missed speeds pain and her ability to concentrate or to assess any kind of medication side effects which really leaves this was all on one of the forms yes but she submitted she submitted a form in two thousand and nine and then she submitted an explanation of some of her responses on the form in two thousand and ten and then a subsequent letter i believe in two thousand through thirteen where she indicated she could not she did not have data or information to assess the impact of its misdeeds pain and we're looking at what time period because of the prover the prior decision was through two thousand and ten i believe the alleged onset date was amended at hearing two october first of thousand and ten i'm not sure if we have a copy of that in the record but at at hearing and then with a form submitted after hearing his speech actually amended her asserted onset date to october two thousand and twelve which she said at hearing coincided with a decline in her in her situation and her symptoms however the l j noted that there is nothing in the medical record to indicate a decline at that time testified i believe that up to ten percent of the time being off task up to ten percent of the time is within acceptable limits by employers that you know transition time from one task to the next in this case i believe it addressed as her need to switch between sitting and standing at will which he included in the r f c and of course that my distract you for a moment has your rising from your chair but there's no indication that it would have taken her off the house for a significant amount of time so the l j i believe include at that as a as a response to that need to sit and stand is that that same session he was posing a road opinion recently why do we still include things like she's able to climb or of there are many people in this room would climb i prefer not to but certainly could make a difference it just yet doesn't it doesn't have an outcome on the case but and but it is kind of an odd inclusion reference  decision that specifically addresses demeanor appear in it that there just isn't other than that one statement about her answers objective evidence we have evidence injections we have evidence of of stenosis in the cervical spine we have the fact that she only got her pain medication or muscle relaxants from the doctor gave her a prescription to take to a free clinic which is noted that that was her only treatment for most of two thousand and twelve as for her daily activities there really isn't a lot a letter she submitted to college so back in two thousand and twelve she outlined exactly what her opinion once on november seventeenth two thousand and ten she said they'll need to elevate legs was due to swelling in lower extremities and that her need for unscheduled breaks were due to the conditioning as well as intermittent pain in the back upper back and neck and that's going to need she'll need breaks to be able to move around in decrease helps to translate the entire record into a chronological s then we had a second disc application file that was heard by judge already that was remanded by the appeals council and then that another hearing was held by judge jacobson which is the decision here so the second application goes back to the original on said two thousand and eight we amended it two thousand and twelve because at that time she started having more significant problems that corresponded more with what the record showed and quite frankly it's a strategic decision on what you have is your onset date based on what you see in the record the way your relationship