that she was almost presumptively disabled under listing one point zero four for her spinal disorders she had ridiculous up if they she had motor loss sensory reflex loss but she did not have the positive s r straight leg reason both the soup line and seating position but if you look at the findings and conclusions of the treating sources including the radiological reports she had an daughter and that when the weather was appropriate she could she could for taken three mile hikes in her neighborhood you know that that was a serious mis characterization of the evidence because if you credit her testimony i was going to get to that later but i'll get to it now that when she testified she credibly testified she did all these things with limitations it was not easy she could had a lie down six times a day she had numbness her hands and feet she had pain she was going to treatment let me go get more credibility but the judge that that was not reliable he cherry picked a few little factoids that he found but that was not enough to discredit her if you accepted what she said and she had  functional capacity analysis that you think was incorrect or were you challenging more than a conclusion that she could perform any work well no the functional capacity was wrong the judge did not consider her  cognitive impairments he didn't consider that she had limits in attention and concentration he did not consider her non exertional limitation of pain he did not consider the side effects of her the ve where she would be unable we should be off task twenty percent of the time and then he didn't credit his own accurate r f c but if you look at her limitations a documented by mistreating sources as well as by her own testimony she could not do sedentary work if you look at the three jobs that they found she could do an m p will seal or a table worker on solitaire for extended periods of time that that is not enough there are many cases out of this court the fact that you're not totally an invalid does not mean that you can work and she said she did it for a few minutes at a time she's testified credibly she had a lie down a lot throughout the day she could clean for a few minutes and then would have to lie down on her treating primary care maybe health wise but not legally it's you only have to have done that if the judge found she was disabled by the obesity but the cases also show everybody i like to lose weight too and man people do and she was unable to do that and that does not mean that she was not disabled by her morbid obesity got there was enough the examining doc consulting doctor for the commissioner he agreed that she had pain in her back and in her legs i thought he was simply recounting what she said no no no he examined her and that that is clinical evidence he was not just looking at her history he did an exam and you know a doctor can tell if somebody is faking or not and he found that she had this pain when he did the range of motion test and the judge equally important in this case is credibility where the a l j wrote lee held that he considered all the evidence and she was not entirely credible for the reasons explained that he never gave a valid explanation why she was not credible he should have enhanced her credibility because she had she had a lot of treatment he should have enhanced her credibility because she had a good work history he found her not credible because she had applied and received unemployment and the there is some you know that that does constitute some evidence and you're relying heavily on on the testimony of a new spark tissue as it has a treating source which really isn't perhaps cops and its practitioners should  usually spend ten times as much i with a client the patient as a doctor does but under the regs that it worked for you know that you cannot use as your primary factor that somebody received unemployment when a new york state that's what people do people do not get short term disability yes you've just transmitted that into being a primary factor it to you conceded it's a factor where you get this factor and that factor the other fight together may get you look at  credibility i'm sorry go ahead i'm sorry if you look at her credibility i think she was very credible she was never inconsistent internally or inherently and that this judge seemed to make that the primary factor that she had received unemployment when she had no other money and the cases in the policy say that can be one factor in assessing credibility but you look at the e m g an m r i and straight leg raise those are objective findings and once you have those objective findings the person and they can support her pain she testified credibly he also held it against her that is she only stood twice in the hearing when she said she was uncomfortable and he finally let her stand and then that again is not substantial evidence by itself and he also found that not losing weight was held thank you your honors this is an appeal from the district board you just showed this appeal from the district court in a decision dated maine two thousand and sixteen affirming the commissioner decision should be upheld the commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence including the did the commissioner's determination the r f c credibility assessment his assessment of her cunt combination and parents  medical opinion but ok we argue that it's a it's a it's an issue it's a statement an issue reserved for the commissioner but you're correct there was a statement that she could not return to her that she was totally disabled and there was a signed it primarily related to the chest pain that she was having at the time and further on in the medical records it will indicate that on her chest pain had resolved so you're correct there was that conc by doctors seeing that he had it but it was not something permanent or long term that she could not work and it did not contain any functional limitations am i correct that nurse or work and doctor seems officer worked with him you're correct your honor i guess my concern is if medical assessment in the record if you have all the medical records from the treating source does not in itself make the medical evidence incomplete from the entry source and there were extant i mean there were records from her treating sources contrary to what my colleague has has argued in this case that indicated that functionally she was not as limited as she claimed to be and the r f c which was as they may point out significantly limited she was limited to  ability in that she would have to get up every thirty minutes for one to two minutes to relieve any pain she might have been feeling to what extent is it appropriate for  one can sit for whom periods of time because one respects them the proceeding by staying seated at the at the at the table during the hearing well your honor i think think the length of the hearing actually does kind of support the a huge determination that she how long was the hearing how long would hearing was for an over an hour and also there's evidence the record that she herself admitted she could sit for thirty minutes she also admitted and country to what might she ended up in the course of that out believe two brief periods but she had a minute maybe she herself on you know acknowledged hearing was only one hour she stood up twice in order to relieve your honor that the energy did not focus entirely on that that was one thing he looked at but he also looked had he looked at all the medical records he looked at the clinical findings which did not support a finding that she was limited to that grazing was negative on many of the examinations if not rule as she had deep hindraf reflexes were present on so i mean that was just one one element that the illogic considered in and in creating can't have any obligation to try to lose weight in order to be deemed disabled by her obesity and associated functioning challenges i full illegally that's not a factor but the ailing shape did not find her disabled because she didn't lose weight the l g found her not disabled because despite her obesity she could still function in performed work impression the jury did consider that that she did not lose weight and therefore did not follow the advice of her physicians i think hearing in the context of assessing her credibility he looked at all the treatment measures  recommended for her you know she had off with their ph she had physical therapy she didn't keep discontinued going to physical therapy chiropractic therapy was recommended she didn't want to go to even after you know she had or acupuncture so i mean it appears that whatever treatment recommendations there were she either did not want to follow through or if they were effective  know she declined to continue event just to touch on with respect to her credibility i do want to point out that he did apply the regulatory and statutory factors in assessing her credibility he looked at the diagnostic findings he'd looked at the clinical findings he also looked at her or her activities of daily living which country two of my colleague has stated they were fairly active and i think you pointed out she herself admitted that she worked in the summer for three miles daily she took care of children she was able to shop she was able to do cleaning laundry cooking six times a week also we have if you look at them surgery was never recommended as a treatment option for her and according to her physicians if she did lose weight her back pain this would this would be an effective measure for her to to for her back pain to be eliminated or to decrease  event the commissioner and i don't want to address the fact that mccloy has emphasized that her receipt of unemployment benefits was not a primary factor was not the factor in assessing her her credibility if you look at the entirety of the images decision as i have stated he went through the regulatory statutory factors he applied them and it's even not clear to what extent the f found her receipt of unemployment benefits factor in discrediting her he acknowledged that he acknowledged that she had a work history for eight years as a room will they that there were some discrepancy how long would receive unemployment benefits in the record but this was not the singular factor that he applied in assessing her credibility and summary have it just say that the  based in accordance with the social security act and the commissioner's rulings and regulations the district court's march tenth two thousand and sixteen affirming the commissioner's decision should be up effective that they were good for a short period of time they did not work for a long period of time and what's a short period been they usually are good for three months and they were good for a week or two as my recollection  she she tried p t she tried things that didn't work the l j one of his major errors is she never balanced the different pro and con issues on her credibility he never no reasonable person no reasonable fact finder could look at her testimony and look at the g and m r i and straight leg raise and said that she was exaggerating her disabilit limited her pain is a non exertional limitation the fact that she had to lay down throughout the day the fact that she could only sit or stand for fifteen minutes at a time you have to look at those why have m g showed a nerve impingements that could cause pain and once you meet that standard then the judge would have to explain why she was inconsistent or not credible and all these little fact she had were not such to render her disabled sheet if you credited her testimony which you should know reasonable fact finder there is not enough there there was no explanation of why she was not telling the truth the unemployment factor is not enough to justify it the fact that she stood twice is not enough the fact that she didn't lose weight he didn't have any other in consistencies he didn't weigh those different factors supposed to put everything together and explain why a or why a person is not credible and in this case there was not substantial evidence if you a reason you're reasonable people and obviously you're going to make your decision and your fact finders but based on the law of credibility there is not enough here to discredit her especially when you have these objective tests and the standard is when you have that there's a high burden on the judge to discredit somebody thank you thank you thank you thank you both will reserve decision