mn nurse practitioner sleeze mn the up weight that was given to the non examining consultants was more than was due date they were before her so they did not account assessment should be treated but that doesn't match up with the reality of how it a small doctor's office with a nurse practitioner works they the records that would be associated with her knowledge of this claimant are all of dr cooper's records because she's part of that mr rodman yes had to identify the legal errors if you believe that the jury committed in one or two sentences what would it be i would say that they gave they did not properly and rationally consider ms sleeze men's opinion and that the cleanest what is triggered at least is that there was testimony about a seven hairy r f c potentially it was a reduced range of seven terry and those jobs that were testified on by some case law suggest that they're not treatment is problematic is that a big chunk of the opinion seems to rest on the fact there was a gap in treatment from july two thousand and sixteen to may two thousand and seventeen however  walking on and then the muscle fatigue and pain whereas ms please men it seems to seems to almost tell them i mean almost intuitively in terms of the gap almost seems to tell that there's not something she can do she's got to live with the pain that's a piece of it that's not the least piece that's sort of a commonsense piece that i thought might be worth noting the oral argument in addition  the way the knees come into this opinion art isn't very clear the knees are not addressed as you know are they severe are they not severe the last partially favorable decision treated them as this and we don't know whether the administrative law judge intended to consider the need as a subsidiary of the obesity condition which the admission watch called severe  opinion after only seeing ms brown one time and four months later submitted an opinion to say that her condition was chronic and progressive there was no other provider in the record who submitted an opinion man's opinion with supported by dr kuper his treatment records because they were in the same office however when you look at dr cuber his treatment records they really appear to be primarily focused on assisting ms brown with weight loss and looking at the physical examination they do not show significant physical limitations had a normal ga normal strength normal flexibility and in particular the last treatment record from july th seen exhibit a normal examination ms brown has also argue that really that misleads men's opinion explain the gap in and treatment but really what the record reflects is that there was no additional treatment recommend we don't see any indication that any of ms brown bottles providers were stating that she needed surgery or she to do and to take any other additional measures to address her pain in fact she wasn't really seeking treatment very often when she did seek treatment she received injections for any pain and for shoulder pain and those appeared to be effective to the extent that ms was walking for exercise so all of that evidence really does support algy's finding them as could perform a reduced range of light work and the councils are also argue that the residual functional capacity finding for light work doesn't have a logical  bridge but as just previously discussed those treatment records showing that she was reporting that she was able to exercise walking her physical examinations showed normal gait in strength and by february two thousand and sixteen the knee issues were largely resolved yes your honor and that also supports the finding that ms brown bought could perform light work which requires standing and walking to a greater extent than opinion would be speculative or conclusory if if it were connected to the records that there logically tied to and vegan in terms of trouble sitting a long time i am not sure event to go in her favor it and i would also say that she if she's told to focus on exercise because she is in the highest class of doesn't mean it's logically accounted for in the residual functional passerby and i want to draw your attention to the notion that the burden here today if you were assessing disability would be  would be about would be on the plaintiff on but it in this case it it's about the logical bridge and i would say that the argument is is for sure regarding this these men and i thank you for your time i don't have anything else unless you have questions