or this is a social security appeal in which we're challenging the administrative law judges assignment of limited weight to what is an extraordinarily detailed and well supported opinion by his board certified treating  goldstein provided a multi page narrative opinion explaining why he reached the conclusions that he reached where he discusses the treatment that he provided the x rays and the m r i evidence that he procured to better understand mr burns predicament and the reasons why he felt he was limited in his ability to sit stand and walk and those a pen that that opinion is set forth in the record and there's a separate opinion at page three zero three three zero four by dr goldstein as well which this effectively narrows down the amount of standing and walking  two hours of standing and walking in an eight hour day but that's the critical evidence in this case there were also two other treating physicians it is centrally supported what dr goldstein said were absolutely d rehabilitation specialist and doctors to her on michael hearn is also rehabilitation specialists who are also treating a member on the same time and reached very similar conclusions about mr hearns his ability to stand and walk the administrative those tested that support dr goldstein's findings he later on goes on to state that he's rick giving great weight to the opinion of a one time consultative physician now this is unusual in this case y case seems to say that the regulation doesn't pose a requirement on the commissioner to give all relevant evidence to the individual whose review reviewing the file it only makes sense right  done only that it doesn't support an r c residual functional capacity for a lightweight because lightweight requires six hours of standing and walking dr fuchs his opinion is also more consistent with dr opinion who said he can stand and walk for less than two hours in an eight hour day than it is with dr kay adi who said that i think the standing and walk he says standing and walking are unrestricted in his narrative opinion  and in the he does complete a check off the heart he says eight hours work day sitting eight hours were days yeah and in peace basically unrestricted with respect to standing and walking and it's our position that the way to understand dr kay audi's conclusion is that he didn't have access to the objective m r i an x ray results that all of the other doctors and they put in the record did and arrived at very a very different conclusion step away from for him to start away from the treating physicians and to embrace the doctor k i d z view he has to show that for some reason iss analyses is somehow not supported by by the results of the the objective results of the of the diagnostic treat or the diagnostic procedures  done so this isn't like where they're measuring nerve conduction studies or stuff so you don't know that these are interpretations of our eyes x rays right now that's correct he doesn't he doesn't say his saying i'm characterizing it is the how the the doctor khiladi character that's right it's not conservative treatment he had north of disk injections into the need so that that's correct the eastern district of new york appearing on behalf of the commissioner of the social security administration in this case the administrative law judge determined that mr byrne retain the ability to perform a restricted range of light work and actually that opinion was based that then and we don't really need to buy it because you can only overcome a treating physician if the treating physician hasn't based his her judgment on  examined you know and data while this one has what evidence is there what evidence in this case is the treating physicians all three of them didn't base their conclusion on what the examinations and the tests showed this is essentially judge wesley's question well your honor i think that the jay's job is to determine is to to resolve the conflict in the record and the conflict is under or cases is to follow the treating physicians unless there is good reason for not following and we have to specify what good reasons or that the treating physician is not based in his or her judgment on specific tests correct and your honor is correct to point out those tests because those tests are actually interpreted differently by a doctor felix then they are by the treating physician subterfuges specifically notes that those diagnostic tests which plaintiff strongly relies show only limited only mild limitations in the plaintiff's functioning so that the conflict is not so much just the opinions of the treating physicians but also what exactly the diagnostic tests show and for example the that he the reason why he assigns limited way to the treating physicians is because of their conflict a conflict between their opinion and what the diagnostic tests shows and he knows what those diagnostic tests show because he asked dr  on page fifty five where he talks about on page fifty five of the record where he where he talks about how the degenerative degenerative changes that are shown in the diagnostic tests and doctor hearns opinion in particular is unsupported by the diagnostic testing as well as dr goldstein's opinion is unsupported by the diagnostic testing of some piece fifty five of the record and  is asked separately whether than a plaintive constantin for how long and whether he can walk and for how long and he checks in each of those or three hours and the a l j in his hypothetical to the vocational expert asks about jobs where somebody could stand and or walk for a six hour period and so i think because dr fuchs is asked those questions separately how long the plant can stand and how long the planes of can walk that that assessment that he can walk for three hours and he can stand for three hours is in fact consistent was three hours in total rather than standing for three hours and walking for three hours i think is not look at this whole case it really looks more of an almost any case see where  phrase less weight is given to this assessment as unsupported by the diagnostic testing and as the ultimate issue of in the inability to work as a decision reserved for the commissioner that's fifty four and then he talks about dr goldstein next in less weight is given  fuchs says that the goldstein and the other treating physicians have rendered an inappropriate conclusions he just says what dr fuchs says in terms of this fellow's ability to work the medical expert assess that an eight hour workday the claim against it sit for eight hours stand backslash walk for three hours not stand for three hours and walk for three hours not six hours this is the old days finding now in lifting carry twenty pounds frequently how are that he has a say less weight is given the opinion because it's inconsistent with dr fuchs interpretation of the m r i and i give dr fuchs more more weight his and tell us that how are we how are we to understand how he rejected but the point is is that if if the treating physician rules always where the action is on these right i mean and also always the action is in the old races look at the treating physician didn't really look at the nerve conduction studies didn't really physician never did test a b c and d and so therefore the treating physicians all the treating physician relied upon the subject of complaints of pain we see this all the time in these and they all just as well you know disconnected from any kind of support or objective observations and that's point generally pointed out by the physician that reviews the file and we always say well that's a legitimate reason why you could have a doctor look at file not have been the treating honor respectfully i think that while the a l j didn't phrase it exactly as you've said the record clearly states that dr fuchs in reviewing the the diagnostic tests came to the conclusion that they saw mild limitations and motions and that that's within the record on byrne could stand and walk a total of three hours not stand for three hours and then walk three hours on top of that second circuit case law and vargas versus sullivan from many years ago  principle that you have to in order to be walking you need to be in an upright standing position so doc judge administrative law judge kilgannon correctly interpreted dr fuchs his opinion only if we accept the opinion advanced in litigation by the commissioner in this case that dr fuchs is a pain you could be read to mean that he could stand for three hours and then walk for six hours could this court agree that dr fuchs his opinion would support the light residual functional capacity that the judge arrived at as it's written in the decision that fifty five where he says stand backslash walk exactly that's  and v a l j i actually took it as that i have no quibble with the judge's interpretation of what dr fuchs meant when he completed the form our position is that dr fuchs his opinion is more in line with the treating physicians believe with judge wesley that that would be a tortured interpretation of what doc what judge kilgannon actually said in this opinion he taught be repeated and he says talks about the treating physician evidence and says i'm not i'm giving this less weight because it's not he didn't have the one reviewing physician yet because they had to done what he was taking the riginal proof and so would have been a lot better if he'd said great weight is given his opinions based on a complete evaluation history and is inconsistent with the diagnostic has indicated in dr kiani he id's report for the following reasons it's hard for it's it's it's very hard to figure out whether he just decided it was inconsistent or even or it was inconsistent with realities overall evaluation and as this court has repeatedly said the court in order to review the case must know what the adjudicator is meaning in their decision it should be clear you should have to reach too far into this to come up with alternative explanations if the court is satisfied that the administrative law judge failed to follow the treating physician rule and that the treating physicians opinions are extraordinarily detailed and well