secondly the l j failed to properly evaluate her master statements according to social security's rulings and thirdly the l j failed to properly weigh the medical opinions in the case which the court has initial questions or concerns i'm going to start with mr masters inability to stink consultant found that she had no severe mental impairment her treating psychiatrist said that of the sixteen areas of mental attitude needed for unskilled work she either had no ability or very limited abilities which seems on its face more severe than a moderate finding that moderate finding doesn't appear anywhere that's not it doesn't come from a functional capacity evaluation or any medical secondly even assuming argue window that a moderate impairment is the appropriate level to did neither of those things here it's very clear cut in the residual functional capacity of i wish and the l j limited her to simple routine repetitive work varga tells us that simple work is not enough to accommodate argues that you know the l j doesn't have to use magic words such as concentration persistence or pace they don't have to use that exact phrase but they do have to say something and the a l j didn't ask any sort of limitations of the vocational expert that would indicate increased rates a they relied on a few different erroneous analytical principles the first of which he relied on a couple of inconsistent statements about substance abuse one time mr masters said that she did not use cocaine to her doctor and one time she said that she did not use it ever to a so security examiner she later rehabilitated both of those statements but those are two inconsistent statements over the course of a record that years baled hay use those two inconsistent statements to essentially color the entire credibility which is inappropriate under sixteen three feet and secondly that l j also relied on perceived improvement but that perceived improvement one felt very late in the record she alleged disability starting in september of two thousand and nine and the earliest evidence that the l j cites is november of two thousand and twelve where he said that she was responding to treatment and then by october  thirteen her arthritis was well controlled even if she was experiencing improvement during that time period even if it was well controlled by two thousand and thirteen that doesn't account for the previous four years that she was alleging disability if the ale j a lying on an improvement then there has to be some sort of bright line that says ok well she got better at this point so she's no longer disabled or the l j has to address what was going on in the earlier period and show why she was disabled anyway he didn't do that secondly on that point the received improvement doesn't appear sustained mr mestre was continuing to receive very significant treatment all the way through the end of the administrative record the last records appear in feb of twenty three fourteen and i disorders she's also experiencing me pain during that visit so even after the surgery dale jay says well she got a lot better because her knee pain was improved after the surgery and that may be true on a temporary basis but the record reflects that it was of daily living essentially blowing these out of proportion and saying that because she can do these minimal things she must be able to work a on full work day a few other notable highlights is a visit to  houston she says she went to houston to care for her sister there is one note in the record that has any detail with that whatsoever and it's that she quote watched over unquote her sister that's it there's no other details about what that is that could be anything that could be sitting in providing companionship going to fetch a glass of water changing the television remote control because you can't see the t v we have no idea what that is that's very analogous to this court's ruling in colon cohen and said that there was a d of information about how a person cared for a sick relative other than the fact that that person encouraged the sick relative to eat more healthy that the court said that that's not a reasonable basis there's certainly nothing that suggests that she would be able to do full time competitive work because she went to go visit a sister another one is reading she said she likes to read four hours a day she likes to read nonfiction there's no oil no indication about how that was conducted th whether she retained what she read whether she could retain it the next day how quickly she read it for all i know she spent four hours on one page of the t v guide technically four hours technically nonfiction we have no idea how it was conducted she could read for an hour and take a break for an hour all day long but even if he did something more complicated than a t v guide and even if she did do it for four hours a day that's not eight hours a day that's not evidence that she could sustain her concentration for a full work day on  twenty five watts from her house she went to a book club but she stopped going to book club because it was overwhelming to her she went to church she paid bills she walked her dog the sort of minimal activities are not inconsistent with an allegation of an inability to sustain a full work week the last major point is that l j failed to properly weigh the medical opinions dale jr relied on to non examining consulted the opinions of doctors foster and walcott doctors foster and walcott didn't have access to over three years worth of the medical records which are generally that's the same time period that's a finding that she experienced improvement these doctors never even saw that no doctor for the agency said that she experienced improvement during that time period the l j just went out on a limb and starts off with regards to the her treating doctors dr bruce he rejected that opinion because dr bruce just made one inconsistent statement about her sitting and standing tolerances and we can see that that's inconsistent but that one inconsistency isn't enough to color the entire thing and dr bruce just rendered an opinion on a number of areas of her physical capacity and also said that she had difficulty sustaining this is very similar to dr myers who is the state agency examining physician who said that she could pay attention for up to one hour on enjoyable activities and inability to sustain concentration for two hours is essentially the same as being able to pay attention only for one hour and that l j fail to account for that social security ruling eighty five fifteen says ordinarily a person has to be able to stay in their concentration into our segments that's two hours morning group two hours long two hours and afternoon breaks two hours you go home if you can't sustain your concentration for two hours you're going to have a hard time holding down a job dr boo still said that she had a whole hard time maintaining a concentration doctors and tennis said she had a hard time maintaining her less than a preponderance determining whether the l j cited such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate support or conclusion and under this deferential standard of review the l g s decision should be affirmed take brewmasters for physical functioning for standard a standard that this court has recognized for over thirty years including as recently as twice last week governs here and under patently wrong remasters argument washes away because the l g discounted her allegations as inconsistent with her improvement records she travel to las vegas she traveled to houston travel to atlanta the resident rather she was happy she had three flights so she could go visit an aunt and she made multiple trips to the casino this very much overshadows a can a statement that she does not get out often thank you so much first very quickly my opponent says that l j added all of these additional limitations out of the goodness of his heart and yet did not play doctor how do we know that those additional limitations are the appropriate limitations if you actually take a look at her doctor's medical opinions th more in excess of what the a l j found there's no evidence your basis that they found the right level on that secondly i'd like to say that we're also not arguing that you should do away with substantial evidence standard that's the standard but we are saying that you don't need to rely on the with the old ruling and they're not inconsistent in fact they used large swaths of the same language cut and pasted paragraph by paragraph and old ruling to new ruling but the change does mean that we can't use general standards of credibility someone's demeanor whether they exhibit pain complaints to gauge whether or not they experience the symptoms as the amount of time thank you so much thank you counsel thanks to both counsel taken under advisement and the court will stand