matters of that sort and she cites it she says she dances says that it's consistent with the record as a whole and simply puts brief citations to the record by exhibit number without any explanation disability rating of thirty two over fifty which when you multiply by two puts him at sixty four percent which is classified as severe he is noted to be lying down reclining both during all all day and all night he has on all sorts of narcotics that no patch you name and the judge for the way she has gone about this in terms of giving great way to dr polanski is simply not supported by  mostly reliable the other aspect of her analysis of the evidence if she goes through it is she fails to look at the significant downward trend that mr givens undergoes he had a surgery in august and is as natural as doctors are hopeful after surgeries and then if someone's having a surgical injury they typically know right on america but in terms of the effectiveness of the surgery that is a progressive matter so we have the surgeon august and we have him giving beam limitations i wouldn't call them it's certainly an f c e but limitations in november although he does so he can simply not supported and it's not consistent with mr snowden feel kind of ask you to react to something it's i understood you one of your main points on appeal these are these are my words not yours sure to be that mr givens can't reach over his head with his left arm not his right arm and the reason i'm asking you that is because when i look at that appeal counsel the appeals counsels modification they modify the l j opinion to say that he can't reach over head with his right arm and i seemed i seem to read your brief to save maybe maybe not but i'm i'm focused on the left arm as well as the right arm and nobody's addressing the left arm am i on to something or not on to some well i guess to some extent yes i mean i think as you are from a reality standpoint i think you'd have a vocational expert indicate that there would still potentially be jobs if that were the only limitation terms of reaching over head with a single arm you know so it would given his situation i don't know that that is a make or break issue in terms of the scheme of the case i really doubt i think that the issue is more in terms of let's assume he had no actors are you still on channel actually still on the other pain medications he still has significantly limited range of motion and he's noted without criticism in physical therapy to spend spend most of the line down reclining which makes sense if you have pain in your neck you don't want to support the head neck and shoulders i don't know any way to do that other than by lying down or reclining which is certainly inconsistent with any kind of  isn't the arm issue still important in the sense that it goes to what dr berlin ski's you're arguing the incorrect nature of his opinion if dr roof finds there is no atrophy inst in the hands but stayed there was actually in the left upper arm and at air to anyone seems to indicate listen there's there's a medical record that supports that so the atrophy issue on the arm also goes to whether or not he can be relied upon correct others correct i mean if it in that scheme in terms of my attack and occupy once again for certain but in terms of the bigger scheme of things i think there are so many other devastating things going on with mr givens records and again it can become you know it's kind of like going to a cherry tree and trying to pick out your favorite chair there's a lot here so i think that my response is more along those lines yes your honor it is important because it goes to the minimalist that form doesn't allow you to use your government your argument is even though the i got the box right in front of the right even though the box never is checked never doesn't mean never correct i got it if you took it to the extreme if you eliminate all but the can to continuous and supposed to do under the regulations which was wavy opinions the question here is not whether the court would have come to the same way as the l j rather the l j swaying was one reasonable course when looking at the evidence  finds that the l j was reasonable and took a reasonable course then the l j and the commissioner should be affirmed here the l j looked at the opinion and she gave more restrictions than examining  givens to lifting only forty pounds the l j more than accommodated this opinion because the l j restricted mr givens to lifting a maximum of twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently additionally the l j ga limitations reaching and handling dr berlin ski explained that he based his opinion upon a review of the of the of it and as a just mentioned earlier it was in december two thousand and fourteen which was after many of the she in there and it should have been a he however that doesn't mean that dr miller had to do was dr bill and skew wrong about the dominant hand what didn't he say there was no atrophy well there was there was no atrophy on the date where he's he's referring to which is april st two thousand and fourteen  so maybe i'm confused i thought of there was pretty clear evidence of a atrophy in the dominant left arm right but i thought somebody who examined right  on page seventy five in the nd paragraph under explain exertional limitations refers to a follow up on april st two thousand and fourteen and then it continues on to page seventy six which  consistent with dr ruse lifting limitations of dr berlin ski restricted mr givens to lifting twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently and dr drew had allowed either thirty or forty pounds  of work despite these heavy medications and although this was not raised in the briefs dr king who was mr givens primary pain relief physician said that the pain medications would result in mr givens being unable to operate heavy machinery or dry those were prescriptions that dr king gave based upon the medications and the l j adopted those limitations in his in deutsch though expressly say he can lift overhead i'm not sure if he said expressly that he could lift overhead but he did he was giving it workman's compensation opinion and his limited final on the table isn't the isn't the ability to lift overhead significant in the arc in the r c p it's not just that it's not just a matter of can i get forty pounds right off the ground an inch right for purposes of working in other words lifting overhead is is is meaningful as a functional matter in one's ability to being unable to do their walk at all or walk from only one hour a day sit for one hour they stand for one hour a day that was outside of the outside of what would be supported by the record in the l j all i'm sorry dr fer of are also noted number of pulmonary prescriptions despite no evidence of that so it was within within reason for the l j to discount dr care of ours opinion recount that mr givens needs lie down or climb i don't know how people can lie don't recline and walk so i think it's fair for him to talk restrict walking the that's that's that's that's something in the context that you know how do you treat this patient and if that is how functional whether it's mark you know nun or two hours hot eight it doesn't matter it's going to be interrupted with the need to lie down like like you thank you counsel in cases taken under advisement