here indicated that she was limited to a reduced range of light work with some additional postural limitations the layer of those two opinions was in august of two thousand and sixteen the judge rejected those opinions for three i think one of the threshold issues in this case is what level of persuasiveness the judge has to reach in order to reject the state agency doctors i certainly am not trying to take the position the state agency doctors are binding on the a l j  however they are they are doctors they are entitled to some amount of deference their opinions are evidence and the judge should have to reach some sort of a standard to say that the evidence is not persuasive there was some discussion of the priests over whether this issues waived i think the waiver issue was resolved by the actual be sol which pointed out that when it's a peer issue of law and opposing councils have the opportunity to address the issue in the briefings then there contradictory the underlying social security standard is substantial evidence in the record i think at a minimum to meet that standard the reasons would have to be legitimate and they would have to be specific which is the same standard it applies hearing so obviously it's going to be more developments our contention is that the judge in no way is indicated how that later received evidence shows that the claim is capable of more i i would just like to point to a couple of brief examples no point to the judge explain how that demonstrates the capacity for medium level exertion that's that's i think what what i want to get to is it's not enough for the judge to say this is contradictory he's got to explain why it's contradictory especially whereas here yes there's certainly more evidence that came in after the d inconsistency between an attempt to work and a claim for disability in fact there are there are sections of the regulations that specifically protect them ie urge people to attempt to work a trial work period is allowed and a person can  thirty three point two right so st was the assertion that the later records are inconsistent and that's the previous discussion the nd point the judge brought up was that her treatment w conservative again i do concede that her treatment for her respiratory issues was conservative but her rheumatologist indicated that she had had an adequate response to three oral medications and did not respond to an article steroid injection at excerpts of record for sixty one dollars of the doctors specifically indicated that standard therapy had failed so at least as far as her arthritis conservators treatment didn't work the rd issue that the judge raised was the claim is activities of daily living  specifically those were adequate self care preparing simple meals doing household chores going to the store walking for exercise driving a car and engaging in hobbies like reading camping and fishing at most camping and fishing could conceivably involve medium level exertion depending on the particulars of what the claimant did those particulars and not part of the record of these other activities preparing simple meals driving a car reading just disagreeing with the say the agency doctor that we have not actually raised credibility as a separate issue in this case but the judge relied on those activities of daily living both to discredit her testimony and to discredit the state agency belief and that's why i think it's important to be sure about what exactly the standard is for rejecting a state agency dr i agree with you that citation the evidence is important but i think citation that evidence doesn't articulate what standard the judge has to  not yet been submitted l j was reasonable in relying on this later evidence to find that they overestimated bridge these limitations by limiting her to light work and that a limitation of medium work was more appropriate  evidence specifically the il shape waited to bridge these activities of daily living and we've got i think two different areas where activities of daily living are significant one is the mention of issue in the campaign that only went through while doing exactly what he was not specify that argument sort of missed of the tree because what we're really talking about here is a level of activity it's asked what are your current hobbies they wouldn't respond fishing and camping in this is something that she volunteered to doctor because when he asked about her hobbies she said fishing and camping a reasonable person would be left scratching their head comparing the assessment of doctors bernardo and our well the grids the was limited to light work because of pain and fatigue and her own later admission that her hobbies or current hobbies were fishing camping things that you don't typically associate with someone who had back and hip pain as well as need pain that are so severe that they believe her to light exertion additionally we also have quickly because of her parents in fact you have to keep in mind that she was working for a temp agency or a series of temp agencies and that she was being regularly sent out to jobs according to  the record of someone who did an occasional day here or there and was unable to continue this is someone who did a variety of different jobs for different employers but did it pretty regularly based on her earnings and there are references in the medical records that show that she wasn't just limited to light work when doing those jobs for example if we go to the records of nurse practitioner amanda hill and e r for thirty five  had heard her next six months earlier while lifting a heavy object were based on that time frame that would be around june two thousand and seventeen notably she didn't seek any kind of medical attention for this and she wasn't even seeking medical attention when she mentioned it six months later she was getting medical attention for an ear infection and happened to mention that hurt and that was painful because of an incident lifting heavy objects that were on top of that she told her physical therapist in january two thousand and eighteen that she had been doing a lot of heavy lifting repetitively repetitively at work and quote back in august and that it had worsened her pain so she told two different treatment providers are two different occasions that she was doing work through this temp agency that required heavy lifting and heavy repetitive lifting which is very much supportive of the ala j's conclusion that she was not limited to nearly light work and was was capable of doing more specifically medium exertion work and her old job of  continuing to do housekeeping which by the way she also continued to do when she had clients on top of the work through temp agencies as well as going to college in order to build consider your honor if i could address i think i think i'm hearing two different or two related questions there and i'm going to try to address them separately first of all with respect to the pain and you're right  she does consistently make those complaints throughout the record however as opposing counsel ms young has admitted they have chosen not to challenge the able james finding that those subject complaints were not reliable so you can't really find error on the part of the able jay on the basis of subjective complaints that the judge found not to be credible and that grigsby has accepted we can see that closed off by the fact that the ail jail valuated subjective complaints found that on the whole day evidence indicated that they were not reliable and that is an contradicted finding and so whether it's back pain needs pain or pain and fatigue related to fibro biology those type of complaints simply cannot get basis for undermining the l g s decision at this point don't want to without having all my ducks in a row here because i don't believe this was really so i might have to ask for the opportunity to submit supplemental breaking it this is going to be an issue that this case will turn on but some seen here under steps two on page thirteen of the excerpts of record continu opposing counsel referenced embry and the standard there's a little bit problematic because i believe that the case she's referring to is not talking about a non examining doctor but rather and i don't regulations and so you can't simply take the requirements that the court has laid out to the heightened standards that are associated with treating doctors for instance and import them over to the substantial evidence review that is described by and in evaluating not examining doctors opinions and with that i will ask the court unless you have any further questions of me that you would simply  be thank you i'll try to be brief as far as the activities of camping and fishing have again pointed out that the specific those activities were not discussed in general a person's activities of daily living according to care will be but are just not comparable to the world of work in the world of work you're not able to take breaks and at what you want to do you can't get help from other people you're subject to a standard of activity that you're just not in the activities  she meant by heavy and i don't think there's any evidence to suggest that what she meant i have to say what the regulations mean by heavy it could very well be that what she meant by having was twenty pounds consistent with a limit of life were you just don't know i believe that's all i