force against thank you for scheduling them on the same day in this case back to the work history issue we have a very strong person that i've worked for many years and in this case and there's an added into c of credibility that is related to the work history and that is she kept going back to work and drive a truck out onto the lot and then walk back and get another truck that's essentially was a job so she went back to work many times after serious surgeries and in order to keep working she had to take heavy duty pain medications and at times get epidural injections sell them and this is what i would call a stellar work history that at least ought to be looked at examine and weighed against all other factors that this lady made a lot of money why would she just throw that away and get to one thousand two hundred fifty dollars a month tory the suffering in order to maintain this very good income she did she endured it understandably wanting to keep working through she's going to make more money than she is on disability right and that is that you know people don't give up fifty thousand dollar jobs to get twelve hundred fifty dollars a month unless there is a really good reason and those reasons ought to be explored and weighed by the ministry of law judge in the credibility and now says you know there was also another problem in terms of her daily activities because she took a break by and the stand that it's we knew that she was still on heavy medication right so yes she her medication regimen actually lessened once she stop for a while because she wasn't out hoping it on the job she could afford to take a lesser levels of medication but even at that a bit with the lesser levels the way she got through her day was with the gaps in the and the rest and if you i tried in my  know that testimony on the daily activities i was trying to when i put it in my statement of facts show the different rafts and and how she was able to get through it was this an accommodation the employer made no this is afterwards after she's stopped and working and her her typical day in the region it's important is daily activities can be used to show that a person can do a certain exertional activity and they can also be used to shows that they can do fulltime work on last they are conducted pretty much the way the  claimant did in a manner that has a little bit here rast a little bit here arrest or sometimes the pattern is do a lot on one day activities would be what her typical day would be like if there were no well after she stopped working in your home you know that uno this is during the period where she's not working anymore activities because that would mean the extent of her activities in the because as i understand it one of your challenges to the administrative law judge is assessment of those daily activities that somehow because she could do these things with limitations that that would allow her to work at being qualified to work for for right i agree and here i think the ale jay drew the wrong inference state morning christie tate on behalf of the commissioner mistah rick was actually employed by allied automotive a company that contracted with g m for which she drove the cars off the assembly line to another portion of the warehouse  where that where she might do inspections of windshields or check the life and as another factual matter mr ark never took heavy duty pain medication she contract  happened titus when she had her twins when she had her baby and because of the hepatitis that she contract it she was barred from taking any heavy narcotic medication the record shows that she took gab then later on the same thing celebre x and i thought how decoded right that was prior to her pregnancy her pregnancy happens after she w those drugs following her fusion surgery which is in december two thousand and five december two thousand as of september twenty twelve the only medication she was able to take was the gabba penton and the aleve yes but so that doesn't mean that she would not prefer to take to have the pain minutes it was just prevented so i mean in terms of just because the drugs were less or does it mean her pain was less she just couldn't take what might have helped to leave the situation that's right your honor i only correct the the medication history to the extent that inferences can be drawn that if she were taking heavy medication that would have left her to her too foggy to perform work that was not at issue here the pain is that issue i write about it so that's what i'm saying we can't read that she means she had less pain is just that she couldn't use the right drugs because of this of the condition absolutely because she continued to complications from that that happened a decade before this trial she issued her decision but in this case all three of the doctors who furnished opinions were reasonably reliant on these unanimous opinions when determining that mr could return to her former job as a yard driver as i said miss start j acknowledged that mr had a bong history of back pain and determined that it did constitute a severe impairment there's no question about that however upon reviewing the clinical evidence the opinion evidence that i just mentioned and all missed stark statements the a reasonably determines that mr back impairments would not preclude her from working altogether it would simply limit her to a reduced range of like work so i guess like you said the male j knowledge she had all these various conditions and so that's why i have trouble with the ale jase discrediting her testimony about her pain saying that it lacked objective support in the record of course or treating doctor  and she stopped being dr shubert before her legit onset date because dr shu got to clear her at maximum medical improvement following her surgeries she had the spinal fusion in two thousand and then it didn't take so she had a bone graft in november of the following year and then after that she continued to get well we do have opinion evidence from other traders from two thousand and eight so this is two years before her alleged onset date in january of two thousand and eight dr fortin her pain specialist was asked to opine what worked what exclusions mistyped would have in terms of returning to work and he said none three months later her podiatrist dr jackson and march of two thousand and eight after mistah had sprained her right ankle his opinion said i would preclude her from working for one more week and then i would return or to full time work with an orthotic and other than that there's no other treating for the treating opinion physician saying that she can't work more over the clinical evidence shows that mr starr continued to have a normal gait she had five out of five strength and both her arms and her legs she had full full range of motion in all of her joints there was tenderness and her lower back and above her right hip however that was described as mild and there is nothing in the record following her alleged onset date or anywhere near her alleged onset date there's nothing in the record showing any significant abnormalities in this case the clinical record simply does not support her allegations of debilitating pain to the extent that she could not perform work at all and of course we still have this boilerplate language yes the boiler plate is included and the commissioner is aware of this court's prohibition against that however in this case the a l j went on following the boilerplate language to describe the clinical evidence that she relied on the opinion evidence that she relied on the statements that miss marr missed starts made both at the testimony and in two thousand and eight in two thousand and eight the record shows that she took f m elaine leave because of her debilitating back pain however the two we have to treating physician notes in two thousand and eight saying go back to work take your  to work that is evidence that miss starke statements are less than credible and then following the boilerplate the l j went on to provide the type of specific examples that is required both by this court's ruling and by s s a regulations while most stark urges that the l g a was required to accept all of her subjective complaints that was not required by the regulations or the case  x credibility before determining that she retains the ability to perform like work in spite of her back pain her decision provides a valid reasons for distrusting mistakes account of her limitations if there are no other questions the the point is that before the alleged onset date yeah she did go back to work and she was suffering from pain and the pain medications are outlined on page three  commonly prescribed for nora pathing pain and in and neurontin the serious stuff but the the whole point is that that's it that's exactly what i was arguing  these are not just subjective complaints of pain this lady has many backs are sure she's if she's if ever a lady with a person with this many surgeries and this kind of work history finally says she has pain to dismiss it just as subjective that's just that and that just doesn't seem to honor hard work that's all the further point now let me see if there's anything else i'd like to  and i believe the timing in relation to the birth of the twins is incorrect i think she had the twins quite a number of years but it does go back to another point she did have which she got in a blood transfusion during the hospitalization when she had the babies and one of the things that have c does is it messes with your liver to the point that sometimes you can always take medications that would otherwise help you so if if the point is that she was not able to access all the pain medication she could have yes she still got it out and