he shows that in fact the claimant did that really and met certain abilities but what she did was over and over and over again express how difficult it was for her to the engage in virtually any activity  care and shaving is very difficult she doesn't do those things very often even using the bathroom and it was difficult for her to sit down and to stand and then she says other than the claim and said all of these tax are very painful and it takes me a while to recover from that so how the l j could characterize those activities as being performed with minimal difficulty when in fact the form explained that there was significant difficulties in many and often she didn't testimony the claimant said she would go shopping maybe once a week for fifteen minutes at most if there were more items that were needed someone had to fill for she did laundry once a week but it was very painful she could only make a simple meal that took five minutes a sandwich or a microwave or a salad she couldn't cut up food and search couldn't open jars she couldn't open cans so again the l j just looked at  r bones of the things she did without considering the fact that she could barely do any of those activities or wasn't significant pain or could only do them with breaks for short periods of time and because the submitted reports after the death last shirt but were also gave an opinion said the exact same thing no but an even the state agency doctor found the claimant to do more but he also found that the claimant was equally limited can do at work on a job there is significant objective evidence that the claimant suffers from severe set arthritis in her lower d lumbar spine and that by itself it cost significant  they are just decision it's confusing because it says it gives significant weight to doctor robinson's opinion but then they have to actually rejects doctor robinson's opinion on how long the claim stand and walk that she has no limitations in using your hands that they found limitations and lifting him hearing so they all say didn't actually adopt most of doctor robinson's and they all just says he gives doctor robinson's opinion because it's consistent with the treating more thing your honor my name is katherine segal i represent the commissioner of social security in this case finding here and determine what impact the claimant symptoms had and her residual functional capacity st of all the look to what the claim of said  about her limits due to sentence she said she had a great deal of pain and it limited her tunics a stream amount of fifteen minutes only of sitting fifteen minutes only of standing  fifteen minutes only of walking at a time before she she had unbearable pain is a pretty extreme restriction so they l j looked to see if there was crime ready medical evidence that was support such extreme limits an claimant walked with a normal an unassisted gate which would seem to contradict her statements about her extreme walking limit she had full ranges of back motion and she had normal months muscle strength casting in discount the claimants pain completely rather they found it was crab rage the grief that she could do sedentary work but that she was not completely disabled by it that if i'm sorry but supports the a day's determination that she could sit for six hours a day especially in light of her testimony that she couldn't sit for more than fifteen minutes we have a medical opinion from doctor robinson who is a state agency physician who reviewed the record in july of two thousand and fifteen he reviewed all the important evidence that related to the the claimant's condition  from her onset date that she alleged of september two thousand and eleven until the date last insured for disability benefits of december st two thousand and thirteen and he makes it very clear in the record that that's the period he was directing his attention to and doctor robinson then found the claimant could perform six hours of sitting and didn't have any restrictions regarding changing positions there was no there's no restriction and for changing positions so that's the primary support for the sitting restriction that the i'd like to point out that the claims attorneys in correct that the l j de facto rejected doctor obvious his opinion he did not he he gave a significant weight and the fact that doctor robinson found that the claimant could stand for six hours does not make it inconsistent with the l j's decision that the claimant could stand for two hours because if you can stand for six hours you certainly can stand for two hours likewise regarding the hand limits doctor robinson reviewed the record and found that the claimant had no limits on hand no manipulative limits no handling limits you certainly can do frequent handling so those findings from jack otter robinson clearly support the l j still sitting here you have a medical source opinion that supports the the residual functional capacity finding and that's significant evidence that that substantial evidence that would support the l g s decision treatment that the doctors who reviewed her make no resonance imaging scans found that there wasn't any basis for surgery there was no impingement on the nerve ro and there wasn't any basis for her doing surgery to correct that so there was a she she had a large spinal canal and even when she had some degenerative spurs and in and bulging it didn't actually claimant did state that she had very limited abilities in activities she also told her pain specialist when he asked about her daily activities that she was able to perform them ok and if in fact she had such extreme limits you would think that she would tell the person who was treating her pain she didn't she said that it was ok and that was during the had a fairly normal gait and did not walk with an assistive devices even though the claimant complained about having limited abilities in that area the other thing she complained about was weakness in her arms and legs and when good when doctor rother  siddur when deciding whether to credit the extent of her her symptoms in determining what the impact of those symptoms were on her functioning and here are the l g limited the claimant to a range sedentary work which is the lowest level of functional capacity that one can have and still work so the l j clearly considered her her complaints weighed them against the record evidence and reasonably came to his decision and here that the v a l j provided enough of an explanation that the court can defer to his symptom of valuation findings he only had to produce some evidence in support of his symptom of valuation findings in order for the quick courts to defer to them and is long as they were nat patently wrong the court may defer to them he clearly provided enough evidence specifically recognize that you don't have to have a neurological basis for you if you have an orthopedic basis for your doctor robinson's opinion for the government is the main reason their support for the then when all the evidence shows the claimant has the same than it's standing walking and sitting that the l j found her unlimited and and the government doesn't explain how that has met the requirements of social security really ninety six