position essentially that the l j fails to evaluate the treating doctor's opinion consistent with the correct legal principle secondly d o j fail to competently explain the adverse credibility findings with specific reasons that was supported in the record these errors on the part of the ala j resulted in the l j failing to build an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to their conclusions as required by this court regarding regarding the first point with respect to the find to give control in late treating sources the l j cites three reasons three points first she says that miss a child just says increased symptoms after noncompliance with medications inference there presumably that if you would take his medications he'd be fine secondly that he has a new york heart association class three rating which he defines as being comfortable at rest and therefore finds that this child has can do a sedentary job or sedentary work with and also how many times we sent this case back to the district court sent it back once and we are here today but we came back on appeal we were denied by the district what do we hear so it's been back once but from the did we hear this case once not we did not a third point for denying controlling way to the doctors was that doctor a died a cardiologist recommended he walk thirty minutes a day five to seven days a week i want to start out by pointing out the period it issue is a five year period from the over two thousand and eight and twenty fourteen that we're talking about and i'd like to first address the noncompliance issue which which is important particularly since the l j uses the noncompliance to also draw an adverse credibility finding so with respect to the period issue  due to an inability to afford that's at five twenty seven of the ministry of record in fact all of the instances i've cited were due to the appellants inability to afford his medication in fact a month prior to the period issue began over two months in  september of zero eight he expressed his frustration to his primary care for a provider being unable to afford his medication because his benefits or public benefits keeps getting cut off and through out the record it says he has he can't afford it  can't afford his medications so we have here not compliance that's sporadic four times maybe five of the government fines and over a five year period i'm certainly not willful and do because due to his inability to afford the medication so we know the doctor a die and parkman we're obviously aware this because it's contained in their treatment notes but notwithstanding that they didn't find it had any appreciable effect on his functional capacity and his condition overall because we know after all he said that  five nine to seventy three to three hundred fifty pounds during a period issue so he's markedly obese he also suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease he has congestive heart failure and cardiomyopathy so the combined effect is what the doctors had in mind when they offer their r c opinion with respect to the new york court association classification the judge finds and declining to give controlling way to the treating sources the judge finds that that definition of class three rating is that he is comfortable at rice but we know that the definition of class three rating is that it's indicative of marks a limitation in physical activity and less than ordinary physical activity causes fatigue dips nea pain so what the judge here does is she leaves out the portion that of the definition which is that less than ordinary physical activity causes these symptoms and clearly the doctors stopped as a die and hartmann to primary care and the cardiologist were aware of what it meant to be at a class three rating and their pinions were further supported by the various injection fighter jets infraction findings that fluctuated throughout the record and during th period it issue the government highlights one time when it went up to sixty six percent which would be normal in terms of the ejection fraction finding however on that point out in that same test which was and twenty ten i believe it was in october tw a cook and a satellite installer he worked for i think dish t v is something i'd rather so with respect to their opinions as well that the other notation judge makes is that catheterization and finds that he has become thin sation obviously already existing congestive heart failure so it's difficult to conceive how that does not support the doctor's opinion that he's not able to do any work but that he's at a less than sedentary  capacity the other point that the judge relies upon is the doctor's recommendation that the plaintiff walk the government points out that it says throughout the record that he walks daily and indeed he's following his doctor's orders he is attempting to walk daily but the records the treatment records those same treatment records each one says he walks one block or one and a half blocks before he's short of breath and he can't walk most of the records or many of the records highlight that he also suffers  he testified in the first hearing which was in two thousand and ten that he could walk about a block or a block and a half consistent the treatment notes before you get shortness of breath by the time of the second hearing he couldn't even do that justified couldn't walk from the parking lot into the hearing location   he described as being fifty to seventy feet so yes he walked but the doctor's recommendation that he attempt to walk at thirty minutes was no reason to decline to give them controlling weight importantly the judge the l j did not  properly articulate what weight if any she would give to those opinion when she declined to give them controlling weight had she done so i think it would have been more now that the doctors would have gotten at least greatly in the determination  process the length nature and extent of their relationship is indisputable here by the record the opponent sees the cardiologist every two months in a primary care physician about a month or every other month their treatment notes which we do look at and take a commonsense approach of it are very consistent he presents with complaints stream fatigue a demon lower leg swelling inability to stand inability to walk he has objective finding such as the ejection fraction testing that's but let me just says u s and the administrative law judges decision of january twenty first two thousand and fourteen this is the second round that was that the ministry of law judges second thank you thank you miss h may please the court mr pierre lou hon on behalf of the commissioner we have a great deal that ends in this case from the period with the prior l j decision up through the decision at issue from january two thousand fifty pounds and his heart disease and he in barely walk take a shower  has trouble breathing he's tired his symptoms worsen with with movement he experiences chest pains tightness in his chest at night when line down and sometimes  walking too much shortness of breath drugs to be to be taking and i don't know if it's a daily or frequently  well your honor neither party briefs that issue at the district court or here but i'm happy to discuss what occurred at the hearing the second hearing in two thousand and thirteen with mr lampe lampley i believe the vocational expert he responded to several questions from both  period relevant period issue shows that when mr childress is taking the list of medications that you're on or noted that the l shape discussed she was very thorough in this entire decision that when he takes those the ejection fraction two thousand and nine said his exercise tolerance was up to keep going to keep exercise cardiologist one doctor a die in november two thousand and nine told him to keep going with the moderate exercise and that when he was compliant with those drugs normal and he actually at times in appointments with the cardiologist as well as with a primary care physician dr could told oh a physician's assistant to munge he denied the other then occasional shortness of well your honor the treating physicians dr hartmann in a dice of more than three days a month but there's really no indication in this record three days three days does it right if you lose three days a month for illness you lose your job that has worked for close of and so is not a likely consequence of someone with all these ailments and all these drugs respectfully your honor that's just not borne out by this record he has severe impairments as the o j discussed as your honor went through in this decision but it's simply not clear why when he's complying with those medications when he's able to walk seven days a week without exercise tolerance is up when he was able to work on a part time basis for at least one of the childress himself is not alleging that here in part mr childress has not allege that it's the side effects of this list of medications that's that the l j should have considered mr childress as as just a peer said is really relying on his non compliance the activities as well as the ejection fracture and the new york heart association classification evidence not so much any particular site if i was wrong or those classifications nothing is wrong with those classifications your honor and in fact the talked about it in the listing analysis under step three to find whether or not mr childress would be per se disabled if you had a listing and the listing with regard to heart  failure which is related to the classification of new york heart association this list four point zero two and it's in that listing that actually ejection fraction comes up because if you are consistently at below thirty percent ejection fraction that something that can meet i believe part a of listing four point zero two but as the l g discussed and as mr childress himself concedes those ejection fractions have had been below thirty but they've also been fifty seven forty percent as well as sixty six percent in october of two thousand and ten was actually good for your and i'm not exactly sure the particulars they got of christe congestive obese the a l j noted that found that and discussed within the listening discussion as well that there is not a particular listing folks for obesity but that his size is considered when she was assessing his work function which here again a reduced range of sedentary this is the lowest exertional level of work the l j put additional pastoral limitations on there as well some mental and with that the l g found that he was able to do still his health his energy bill of the walk around you know that specifically that you're on to read to me that it did not in terms of side effects that you're on i was asking about earlier there was not i don't believe there was any testimony regarding the side effects implicit in having these conditions and taking the medications a lot of side effects are simply wasn't testimony but in terms of what they've done the effect he continued despite the complete periods of compliance which were many in the record as i mentioned earlier only four instances i counted  noncompliance over a five year period he consistently complained of shortness of breath he complained to his primary care physician of swelling of his legs he testified at the hearing that he was out of breath just sitting there at the hearing he testified that he can't stand up or you can't sit for forty five minutes to an hour because of cysts which is another issue that he suffered from that his primary care physician was treating him for you it's just between his legs and the fact of his life and that was his testimony not incorporated in the that is not exactly when you say sedentary does that does that mean because of what you said earlier about his says since on that he can't just set out and he had he has to give you a job you sit all day she said how long and you said he said i don't know maybe forty five minutes maybe an hour but i'd be up and down up and down because i had the sis as tween my legs that sit back i like second hearing she testified about he was asked about this but he said i'm tired all the throughout the day dr hartmann indicated frequently so it's clear by all accounts in the record that the treating doctors opinions are supported and they should have been given controlling weight or at least that the judge should have went through the back the checklist