focused a lot on my clients that he met listing at step three of the agency's evaluation process i'd like to fast forward in make sure i touched on the second argument regarding the medical opinions that weren't accepted by the administrative law judge in this case because i think if you will it's low hanging fruit  in particular with respect to dr lin the treating pain management physicians opinion that in one part was given great weight by the a a l j but with respect to a whole host of dr lines other opinions were rejected with without really any explanation that i could gather from the unfavorable decision in this case and so with respect is out of the biggest error you're looking at there the whether he could sit for only four hours that and then also i believe dr lynn stated that mr cargo would have to elevate his foot journal workday at least twenty percent of the time which i don't think that there's clear testimony from testimony from the book ational expert on the record as to whether that would per se disqualify mr carville from all employment but you just work in past cases i statement after the failed ankle surgery that mr cargo would have to constantly elevate his foot and you know so there's on the on the substance on the merits of that opinion it seemed like you in your brief didn't focus on errors related to dr kizil koski or however we say his name so is that really before us at this point well i'm and i'm not going forward to focusing on any error with respect to king's opinions that i think raise great concern as to whether or not the step five finding of sedentary jobs only that this man can theoretically perform whether that finding is  is valid and you know the other opinions that dr len set forth are that he can only walk one block at a time he can stand in ten to fifteen minute and then again sit up to four hours per day which would disqualify not carolyn also talked about a need for breaks and it seems like you're not pursuing that aspect of what he said as an error well all of the opinions  the l g s to give specific legitimate reasons to cast aside any medical opinions as to votes to doctors and in particular dr len that that wasn't done  well you know with respect to the opinions that's the thrust of plaintiff's it seems like the brakes and the days of absence that he might have though it wasn't the focus of your brief and i don't know if that's because you thought it might be related to alcohol use or whether you just focused on other things well i certainly wasn't trying to avoid it you know that alcohol use is it it's mentioned a number of times in different contexts in this  a opinion i can't discern for what purpose i can't my review of the opinion it's not clear to me what the significance of that that he drinks beer and reports it to his treating doctoring so a lot of beer i mean i think that's at least appeared to be to the l j a remarkable fact it is true that he hammers that fact more than i might have but the consumption is not insignificant and the concern about the failure to disclose that and the effect it might have in connection with because the doctors repeatedly mention he reports drinking in this number of years and it's the the number of beers per week in the record it's not consistent sometimes it's six to twelve there was one mention of it being like thirty to sixty a week it were going to six to twelve a day right in my mind major point as to the alcohol use is that if they o j meant to say that nothing dr lynne for instance  anything dr link says must be cast aside because that's a reckless doctor prescribing narcotics knowing that there's alcohol use that that point wasn't made by the by express in the pinion i think the court would have to engage in that post hoc russia now now is as far as the listing argument that's essential to a plain text argument from my clients  worked do we it doesn't matter because it seems like that whether he could walk was an issue that was considered later when the doctors evaluations were considered yes you're right and i think you know what the issue is is whether it's harmless error at step three error with respect to the listing or an error with respect to considering whether you can walk and the residual function will i think at step three the a o j is decision has to be evaluated on its own whether the step three finding is devoid of legal error and is supported by a substantial evidence regarding the issue of whether the error was harmless i would submit that the residual functional capacity does have some relevant c and supports my client's contention that he meets the second requirement of the listing of inability to emulate effectively and specifically with the example that the listing gives one point zero zero b i believe of examples of inability to emulate effectively is can't climb stairs they found that as part of the are finding and so white while the other two different issues from a lot of the case perspective if he can't climb stairs and not being able to climb stairs in the is an example of meeting this listing then i think that needs to be taken into account in the harmless error analysis i got thirty seconds left with the give you a minute for about a thank you so much good morning bond on behalf of the acting commissioner social security i would just like to point out with the listings it's a very high standard to meet and this court acknowledged that in kennedy it's purposefully written to be a very high standard because it ends g statement he says that the claimant did not satisfy either listing because of the lack of inability to emulate effectively and then did highlight the use of the single point gain however the discussion analysis of the evidence through the remainder of the decision provides the basis for the conclusion that there was a lack of an inability to emulate effectively and i would say to this court cases in lewis which we cited in our brief and that case stands for the proposition that even if the analysis under the direct heading of the finding of the listing is kind of skimpy it's long as you can look at the rest of the decision and determine of the l g you know give you a thorough evaluation of the of the record evidence as a whole that provides the support for the park conclusion and you know that even when the explanation given for the prior conclusion is wrong legally but but but in what respects  i would say i mean maybe it's a matter of interpretation but it seems like the algae thought that he automatically didn't meet the listing because he only used a single point cane and that isn't right well i think that's an example that the l g provided at that point that it was the single point kane but the sentence before says that the claimant has the ability or has not proven the inability to emulate effectively so the l g then correctly states that the claimant is only using a single point king does not provide a further analysis at this point but then discusses the evidence later on than a decision and i think what's lacking here is that the claimant has not identified the type of evidence that would support and of inability to emulate effectively that would be a listing level so for the for example in the plaintiff's brief he said i'm limited to two hours of standing and walking i think we all know that that limitation is not consistent w inability to emulate because that's consistent with sudden terry work and then of course use of the single point cane he also challenge but what makes an ineffective is that you can't your upper extremities are limited to a certain extent you can't carry out the other job do you say for sedentary work and then he identifies that like me true i mean if you need to carry a box or something but he has to use the one cane he may not be able to do well but that but the the vocational expert that when you have those types of limitations that's when you present the limitations to an of occasional expert to determine whether you know how how much of the job base of the occupational base has been impacted and so that limitation of using a single point came was presented to the vocational expert who then identified three occupations which would accommodate that so we do have the answer to that question and i would also point out that in terms of climbing i do not believe that a limitation to no climbing establishes the type of assumption that a limitation against a kind of climbing in general equates to an inability and the effectively does not make sense in terms that maybe we should have as a sitting because it seems like we have the issue of whether you can walk but we also have the issue of whether you can sit as long as the l j assumed and it seems like there was a disregard dr lynne the treating physicians opinion on that for reasons i have really a hard time understanding can you address that yes your honor record and then going on to page thirty four of the administrative record discusses in concert the opinions of doctors lin and huang and so those were the three providers who are all within the and so the l g isn't necessarily required to state i reject i think the language and make alliances i reject dr fox as opinion on this limitation because you know x x x so long as the l g has shown that he or she has considered that limitation in connection with another doctor's opinion and so now that you're hearing a lot of things about these other colleagues but i still don't understand why the l g rejected the four hour limitation on sitting so if you go and you look in discussion of doctoring and the end of your sends you didn't you didn't tell me i didn't hear that oh i was going to say that the l g is analyzing dr lin's opinion in connection with dr wings opinion and then draws the conclusion that he's not adopting those types of  sitting limitations and it's because they were normal findings upon examination of the claimants ankle so how does normal examination of the ankle method i address the sitting well i think because claimant was saying that he  can you are asking about the leg elevation while sitting and so that would be a limitation it's all the limitations i would say together the claimant is alleging that it's the ankle pain that's causing his problems and so what is it about this condition that is limiting to four hours of sitting it's not explained and if the claim is alleging these problems are stemmed from his ankle impairment the elegy is pointing out that the majority of the clinical examinations were  giving full credit to dr len because his failed to mention claimant alcohol consumption be the relevance yes so the l g here is is pointing out that by because dr lynn did not understand that the claimant had this excessive alcohol usage it impacted his treatment of the claimants and so i would say it also impacts his understanding of the claimant's totality of his condition and so i mean that's that's the piece that have paused on because and i understand the connection that the doctor apparently doesn't know some things but i'm not sure how that explains for example the four hour sitting limitation how would that change if he'd known about alcohol can sell i think it would change his lens of what is cause why would the claimant need to be on able to sit or stand or do any of these things if the claim is drinking excessively it could impact his  functionality so instead of attributing you know dr lee as a tribute in good doctor if dr lynn doesn't know about the drinking he's not going to attribute the inability to sit to the alcohol is know about that he apparently came up with this diagnosis based on what he understood about other aspects of the petitioner's condition and i agree but if the petitioner is only talking about the ankle condition but he's not i  generation it's an orthopedic impairment so i would say that if the claimant is not being accurate about his alcohol consumption and the doctors are focusing simply on his orthopedic complaints there could be a discrepancy there where the doctor is now attributing these symptoms to a condition that really should be examining the alcohol usage so slippage in the disks is caused by alcohol use it's not the cause it's whatever symptom so if he's saying he's allergic during the day or he can't stand walk or he's sitting on the couch all day the opportunity to really give a full understanding of the claims overall medical condition and what the symptoms could be related to so in that respect we would say that the l j may be proper analysis here based on the record that was before him unless there are other questions i have question about how that could give dr tal characters opinions so much weight when it seems like aspects of dr tell shirkers opinion were totally not credible in that he thought he could climb stairs on ladders and stoop and crawl and crouch and that was clearly wrong and the l g did not include those types of limitations  just took out that part right and took the rest and how do we trust this doctor at all one most of what he's saying is totally wrong well you can you can entitle to accept portions of an opinion that he feels is supported by the record and then discount those that are not and i don't know if that's mega linus or the morgan case i can't remember but an l g doesn't necessarily have to agree with everything that's in the medical opinion and can find or adopt those limitations that have the record support and then reject those that don't and so obviously the  of evidence in the record describing this man's foot both before and after surgery after surgery it gets even worse and so i would i would urge the court to scrutinize the evidence itself as as well as the idea that this is just an ankle impairment it's not dr lynn's treatment also focused on the lumbar spine the last radiology at the end of two thousand and thirteen showed taking you over your time and i thank you both sides of the argument the case is submitted the next case on calendar is white versus california seventeen dash one seven one four three it's that i don't have fifteen minutes in th