characterises three arguments first that it was error for the administrative law judge not to afford controlling weight to the well supported opinion of mr kerik was treating board certified orthopedic surgeon dr august two thousand and thirteen report submitted to the commissioners appeals council addressing by an orthopedist addressing all of mr drake erika's complaints addressing all of the evidence that was before the administrative  it was error for the the appeals council to conclude that that evidence was not new in material under the under the rubric of the regulation a twenty c f r for a four nine seventy  and that he was incapable of tolerating even low stress and can't lift even five pounds they're not supported are they by any measure medical evidence or by our client's own testimony but dr weiler is treating its orthopedic injuries right shoulder lower back cervical spine cervical spine was not considered by the administrative law judge properly and was treating him for pain he was treating with  diagnosis of permanent disability and the recommendations for treatment which are pain management and physical therapy yes and you know why couldn't the  provide and the mismatch with yale j thought between the the actual findings and the diagnosis and the actual treatment why isn't that enough because that assessment again and it's the a l j his assessment of what type of treatment would be necessary and imposes too much of a life perspective on on that opinion that that judgment would have to be in the terms of this court overwhelm mainly compelling to undermine the opinion of a treating orthopedic surgeon and yes as you know he does but he doesn't because doctors if we drop the doctor salans report and there's a great difference between comparing those two reports the regulations are it's an evidentiary rule that tells us to give greater weight to the opinion of a doctor who's treated you for a long period of time who has a board certification and who is on the shoulder and they went over the risks and benefits of having that surgery but he chose not to have the surgery there's nothing in the record shows that having the surgery would clearly restore function and so he's left with a bad dominant right arm which isn't fully considered by the administrative law judge in his decision and i think i'm reaching and handling something i'm not i'm not clear about this if you look to look at dr at the fayose multiple impairment that's a side issue about the ability to handle stress and in a work environment and you know if dr defender reach a slightly different opinion than that of dr and dr weil and i don't see that as a substantial issue the real issue turning and twisting in the dominant right arm it's essentially precluded that's more or less what what doctor weil and considered and the judge doesn't address this the judge doesn't address the subjective complaints of pain that mr was when she did that there is a period when she worked and apparently he was maintaining household perhaps shopping i don't remember exactly the list of shopping but taking care of children doesn't that  shows that for a very short period of time september and october of two thousand and twelve mr jerk erica's wife went back to work part time from eight to one so she was out of the household at that point in time he testified that she took two boys to the bus and he watched the daughter was she went to work and then maybe later on he would take the son one son to school so he wasn't watching all three children at one time  and from the from two thousand and ten until october to september two thousand and twelve his wife was home in the household peddling most of those eighty l's and so we submit that it's a good morning your honour's mip is the court names robert shriver on behalf of the commissioner of social security the claimant in this case retired from the new york city police department after being approved for disability pension for which he applied and his last day of work was october thirtieth two thousand and ten mr kerik oh who is forty years old at that time retired after having worked on lighter restricted duty for nearly three years at that point and the evidence in this case clearly caricature could not have performed his previous job as a police officer or police sergeant but the issue in this case and what the a l j addressed is whether or not he was able to perform any other work that existed in significant numbers in the national economy and l g correctly found that mr kerik was able to perform a range of sedentary work and thus was able to perform other work in the national economy right can i draw your attention the says explicitly that he found tricare testimony he claims in his testimony and i quote not credible not credible to the extent that they are inconsistent with the above before the horse but simply a summation of why the a l j found that he was not completely credible and other words that he was not in fact completely disabled as he alleged so so do you agree th n that the a l j should should first determine the extent to which claimants systems are credible in light of the reporting from a another decision and light of the objective record evidence and then use that finding as one aspect the r f c analysis is you agree that that's how it should be done i do agree with that your honor and that's what the l j did in this case the l g specifically took into account mr kerik whose testimony regarding the side effects of his medication when he stated that he was had difficulty concentrating that he was drowsy that he was somewhat fatigued and that's on page twenty seven of the administrative record page seven of  decision the o j states that he limited mr character to simple and repetitive work based on his testimony that he had medication side effects that included diminished concentration so the l g specifically took his testimony into account where he found a credible and incorporated that into the r f c findings and that's and that's where your obviously your adversary disagrees your adversary says that those kinds of issues like drowsiness and dizziness were not part of the r f c assessment and i disagree with that as well based upon the language in the judge's decision just quoted mr character when he testified he specifically stated that the drowsiness and lack of concentration were based on side effects from his medication the opinion the opinion could not have been given controlling weight because it was contradicted by not only other opinion evidence from medical sources in the record but also because of mr to characterise rather extensive activities of daily living first of all dr de angelo wrote in july of two thousand and ten that when mr character was still working that he was able to work on this restricted duty for light duty even though he was not fit for regular police duty dr salan who we've mentioned before also examine mr kerik oh after he stopped working in fact made mostly normal examination findings and upon that he had no limitations in sitting or standing in direct contradiction of dr weil is opinion and dr germino who was the chiropractor that mr tricare co saw noted in january of two thousand and twelve that he was able to stand for long periods quote unquote continuously dr weil and also i would like to note stated in july of two thousand and ten and this is when mr character was still working but applying for a disability pension dr weil instead of he was quote totally disabled quote unquote despite the fact that mr character was working forty hours a week at that time and earning a substantial amount of income regarding his activities of daily living mr character stated when he applied for benefits back in april two thousand and eleven that and a typical day he engaged in light exercises he made meals for himself and his son he supervised his children he helped with basically doing household work he went outside often he  drove a car he went shopping once a week it's in the church he visited his relatives he went out to dinner or to parties with friends and family he took his son to school and took his son to physical therapy he took his son to doctor's appointments and list all of these things to make it clear that he was able to perform a wide range of functions and these are important in the l g took note of these because this is not a doctor's opinion as to what mr tricare coco would be able to do if you were to seek work this is evidence of what he actually did this is what he was doing what he was able to do and is flatly contradictory of the restrictions that are given in dr wireless opinion and it was given little weight up for that additional reason not just for his treatment history not just for the fact that it was contradicted by other doctors and not just for his activities of daily living but all of those factors together the considered to find that dr weil's opinion was not entitled to significant w regarding the about the good work if any are you a good work history now good work history is a factor that can be considered in the credibility analysis it is however under second circuit precedent only one factor it is is there any of his decision the fact that he used to be a police officer with rather significant work duties rather strenuous work duties and at the contrast between have to talk about good work in history as opposed to just knowing the  history i do not think there is a hard and fast requirement that the l g a must say he has a good work history therefore this is a point in his favor in terms of credibility and in this case there are other points infective against his credibility mainly the large activities of daily living that i have already known it won't go through again and addition the l c also took into account some of his testimony regarding his need to sit in stand at will  constantly for say six hours a day the side effects of his medication and what it took him to a large count what mr character stated that he was able to do to say simply that the l g ignored his p history is inaccurate to say the case should remain and simply because he wasn't given more credit for having a good work history i also think is to not warrant it is not warranted particularly given the facts of this case examine mr kerik go until july of two thousand and thirteen which is approximately eight months after the decision was given as a one time examination he had not seen him before the first examination report that he gave considered new immaterial evidence because the extreme limitations that dr de fail specifies would have been rejected for the same reasons that the o c a rejected dr wireless opinions in his questionnaire last quarter as a further questions as he my time's almost up  to that and presumably the medication as well he takes daytime naps how many times you take a daytime nap every day that's a transcript page forty eight forty nine of the record with respect to the concept that mr  doing exercises the only part of the record that discusses that is where he says he engages in therapeutic exercises and puts hot packs and cold packs on his body as part of the home treatment in the assessment of credibility well we can read the decision ourselves and see exactly where the where the judges rationale is the judge is saying i i've considered the r f c assessment and then separately i'd consider the exhaustively explaining how the judge went through the required elements of the credibility assessment that twenty c f r for a four fifteen twenty nine those it's an exhaust process that the judge is supposed to go through and the problem with the boilerplate throwaway language that we see here is that too often it's been accepted as as a way to dispose of what should otherwise be an arduous and detailed and specific credibility standing for long periods of time could be managed alone despite marked pain and that's at forty five forty six and that said in a continuance they can be done with some difficulty because of pain thank you thank you for your ar