which is also to disability and title sixteen there is not a question what what is not in question in this case is that the plaintiff has capacity to work that is not an issue gayle j the administrative law judge found he could do sedentary work with a number of restrictions sit stand everything thirty minutes limited bending etc simple work only that's not the question what is established in this case and how and there is absolutely no question is that the vocational expert testified that with this exact this exact residual functional capacity there is not jobs if either one of two things occurs and there is absenteeism of one day a month or more or b he is off task eight to fourteen percent or road to job obviously as you get to fourteen it's almost eliminated in fifteen percent eliminated and the the error of the administrative law judge is in finding that there is absolutely no diminishment to the ability to work consistently there is not a medical opinion that supports there is not only not a medical opinion that supports that view but every single medical opinion especially on the physical side but also on the physical and the mental find that there is diminished meant there are three treating sources there is the pain doctor the pain doctor issued a form and said the conditions cause pain they cause for teak because diminishment of concentration they cause diminishment of work pace and b and because of this he therefore is off task and estimated off task being greater than fifteen percent the pain doctor did a deposition and said these are the reasons why it is exacerbated because what we found in pain management is that when there is a co morbid condition of psychiatric impairments that makes the person feel it even that much more but that the off task is is caused by that the your client's  surgery is it the case that all three of the case that all three of the doctors you're referring to became treating physicians after he filed his application for disability perhaps so but none the less the case is the cited in the middle of two thousand and fifteen so the question is does he meet us at any time up until the case of the cited it's an s s i case so even if it goes back with instructions  primary we are the orthopedic surgeon and the pain clinic they all agree that but they say in doing it he would have these limitations to off task and absenteeism we did the surgery back in two thousand and twelve forgive me i don't remember exactly the date that he started treating him wasn't it was a primary treating for a long time and fang started treating i think in two thousand and thirteen but it all relates to some portion of the period and when you bring a case sure you know the judge has to to his ability to stay on task and there is absolutely no diminishment to his ability to work in the hypothetical that was presented only in the sense you know in fact the plaintiff's own treating sources say that he can do that work the hypothetical we are challenging in that it does not find any diminishment to his ability to work on an ongoing and regular basis none at all yeah we made this exact same argument in the district and that was our primary argument in the district court that the a l j erred in felt that was the entire argument i mean we made others too but but the entire argument is that the by attempting to elevate his opinion over that of every single doctor who commented on the issue of off to ask an absenteeism and that's excess or better by some psychological conditions as well dr john henri who is the commissioner's consultant says you can even do mild exertion our point is that is that it is almost the polar opposite of what this court has when you have a situation where an a l j makes a decision that may or may not be right but there is at least some evidence and you give the greatest consideration bending whether it's lifting whether it's standing whether it's sitting or whether it's off task on absenteeism then it is exactly the opposite the administrative law judge must give the greatest deference this court has found that the that the proper opinion getting it gives the standard overwhelmingly compelling evidence virtually the same standard only in reverse in terms of trying to sustain what a nail jay says and i o j can be completely wrong but if there some way you have to defer the ale j and in this case you know i don't have enough time to get into all the objective symptoms but clearly throughout and it's in our briefs throughout there is pain own question there's there's injections after failed physical therapy after a felt surgical procedure and all the doctors especially including the pain doctor says these conditions cause pain these conditions cause fatigue these conditions cause diminishment to concentration miss work and that work would be more than one day per month and there is no opinion otherwise thank you limitations which were merely checked off and they did not provide any basis clinical or diagnostic findings that supported such limitations from his physical impairments the fact is that  i have such pain that i can cannot concentrate well i believe that not because as smith himself says in the reply it's the combination of just i mean you can't just separate pain out or do you concede that pain is a non exertional physical limitation could be disabling at least could prevent somebody from working in that kind of jobs that were that were mentioned and the commissioner's regulations find  supported by other significant evidence a record including the four concentrate of examiners the state agency review psychologist dr harding and the smiths robust activities of daily living which  does it it doesn't mean that smith is a perfectly healthy individual it doesn't but it also doesn't mean that his pain is so disabling that he would be unable to do any work that exists in the national economy which is what the sedentary work that allows for a sit stand option every thirty  minutes so i just you know i think you want to reiterate that here that despite smith's argument that there is contradictory evidence specifically on the off task of absenteeism limitations and that the pain that comes from his physical impairments does not just does not does diminish the consultation of examiners assessments because pain cannot be simply taken out of the equation  proven between steps three and four and that is and smith still has the burden at that yes yes then the question is is there anything you can do given the residual function that you and and here stand you can see that he can do whatever yes but they don't really address do the non exceptional physical limitations the pain and the distractions from from his physical limitations well cosseted of examiners are familiar let the agencies policies or regulations and the residual function of capacity finding which contemplate and ability to work and eight hour eight hours a day five days a week so when they are rendering their medical star statements they have in their minds that this is the medical start statement is for somebody who can do a normal work week and a work day so even if they don't talk about the nonsensical limitations when they're talking about the physical limitations we're just going to assume we're dressing well because they have to in order to find that  i mean because the constitutive examiners do these examinations for the purposes of the agency it's a disability findings they are all well aware that their examination results are made for the purposes of determining the residual functional capacity finding which in turn ok are ok thank you thank you very much  disability wiesner so he's doing well for the hip replacements he's an excellent to make excellent progress and there are other inconsistency is in the treatment those with those forms they fold but when it's time you have a tape of how  explained yes very easily your honor number one there are statements both ways for example make leavitt's who has no legal knowledge as to the standards of of thirty does say he thinks he can work which is and  his r c says that and fangs are if she says that and we are see they all say that that's not the issue the issue is in doing that work will he have any absenteeism or any off task and that's the issue and yes you can you can pick and choose  can find a few that are inconsistent and find that some that are consistent which says doesn't qualify for disability he's a doctor he said he doesn't know what disability is he's a die he says he doesn't qualify for disability and then he says he doesn't qualify for disability because these are his impairments and among the impairments are that if he tried to work he'd be absent more than one day mick which being a doctor doesn't know that the vocational expert said being off task more than our being off task or doesn't means that there are no jobs he can work there's none issue as to that the question is whether there is work in the national economy he can do in all the jobs have to court has mentioned can only be done if you can work consistently and it's not a matter as council has said of extreme limitations it's a matter of do the limitations produce any diminishment to off task and absenteeism clearly everybody and i want to i but i really want to because you are one fact from a statement that i really want to address i got fifty nine seconds but the question is any and finds none the factual misstatement is that there are contrary opinions there are not out of the opinions and again we're looking at physical as you mention and psychological the only one that specifically addressed it was the soul security zone psychiatric examiner the expert hording and that's on on transcript page seven twenty five moderate diminishment two to says these conditions on psychiatric will significantly interfere with the claims ability to even make it through a normal day let alone work so there is not one contradictory opinions specifically on that issue and to the extent that