fell he ended up having to have surgery and he's never really recovered from that he's had periods where he got somewhat better but he never reached a point where he could actually do any kind of full time work i don't want to work and then he also secure a job releasing him for ok those are snapshots the problem is from the from january two thousand and eight and beyond that the ail j does not discuss base his decision on all the evidence i ask you because in february of two thousand and nine looks like dr wang wrote i strongly recommend he continue his retraining and i fully anticipate he will be able to work full time after completion of return of training what are we to make of that that's an e r five ninety seven well two different things one is that dr laying was very much interested in encouraging his patient to continue with his vocational rehabilitation which he'd been doing religiously for a number of years trying to get training ahead to keep his switching the training because it was he was having trouble concentrating on stuff he wasn't doing that well and they were finding there were things he was there trained to do that he couldn't do but that once again that's a snapshot if you look at doesn't excuse the l the adult and the l g didn't mention that and didn't give that as a reason for  there's a social security regulation that says that if you're just dave old unable to do any kind of work but you're participating in a vocational rehabilitation program your benefits you continue until you complete the program a there's no requirement that that employers accommodate your needs the other thing then i think this is a big you know the residual functional capacity assessment in this case is actually very limiting it require an at will sitting is the worst thing for him and after twenty minutes of sitting he's he's getting muscle spasms and and needle pains he says he's a mess it also doesn't account for the concentration problems that he has as a result of the pain medications he has to take and it doesn't account for his need to actually times to relieve the pain all of that was addressed help me with my mental block here you have a treating board certified neurologist treating board certified physical rehabilitation medicine specialist you have a counselor psychologist all of whom agreed and you had a medical records examiner this dr staley all of these people agree if you have a treating board certified who is invested in the treatment of the patient and the recovery of the patient who testifies adverse to the interests of the patient that is simply highly highly credible was it not if there's no doctor that disagrees with what they say what what you argue is two things one that the l i l y a l j relied too much on a treating neurologist and secondly that there was some subjective complaints by mr dooley and his girlfriend they find those some of those complaints and subjective complaints are consistent many are not and they is not one word of their clinical findings in january of two thousand and eight forward now i'm not asking this court to reweigh the evidence i'm asking this court to find an l j failed to comply please to cars and so i can send representing the acting commissioner of the social security administration for brevity's sake i'll refer to the acting commissioner as the commissioner the commissioner's final decision is supported by substantial evidence and it's free from properly relied upon and accommodated the opinion of mr dewey's treating neurologist in october two thousand and six after we did that mr dewey had significantly improved dr lang advised against treating mr do person and a positive doctor was very encouraging of that looks like not you know looks like he would encourage patients in here mr dewey to be active and to do things but it seems from the record least from my reading that mr dooley was in considerable pain and that it increased you know during the time that he was our progress seems what do we make of the evidence in the record that you know mr do it ten school full time he did so with you know considerable difficulty and sometimes had to leave class early just because of the high level of discomfort or pain well and he said that he had only missed a few days of class and that he did say that he had to go home and lay down afterwards but quite honestly i think there's a lot of people that go home from work and want to lay down on i he was able to develop those things though he continued to go to school he was taking twelve credits it wasn't like he was just taking a class here or there twelve credits is a full load and so he was taking a full load of as classes and he also asked dr wayne had approved light office work which like work where the sedentary which he was restricted to by the algae in this case what about the finding of dr laying after i think it was january two thousand and eight do we could work in that mr do we have you called it left as one root dysfunction because of the gastro not going to us trophy and so if you look at the notes of dr wang after two thousand after january two thousand and eight april of two wang never reconsidered his opinion he never said that mr dooley was not able to do full time light work rather dr think progress notes from november of two thousand and eight reflect that mr dooley symptoms were essentially  unchanged mr dooley continued quote continued with and feels he is tolerating it fairly wow and that doctor language quote continue to monitor his systems as he moves into the next quarter of school so even looking at those progress notes after january of two thousand and eight that he was tolerating school fairly w her harmless if it is in concept in consequential the commissioner says if no error happened here but even if there was there is in consequential to that determination that a claim it is not disabled based upon the not harmless mr dooley must show that an error quote likely affected the outcome and that from alina and mr dooley has not met the standard here to support the finding that mr dooley was not fully credible the commissioner reason the levy replied upon inconsistency first inconsistency between his subjective complaints and his reported activities such as taking a full load of college courses five days a week second his reports that he improved when he used behavior modification techniques and third the objective medical evidence that showed that he was not as limited as he claimed importantly mr dooley performed a full range of daily activities including attending college full time that were inconsistent with his subjective complaints contradictions between claimants reported activities and his asserted activities are clear and convincing reasons to discount a claimant's credibility here he was taking a full load of college courses and attending school five days a week he reported to one provider dr wayne that he was tolerating the classes fairly well and taking twelve credits he also said that he did have a stitt stand option in class and the sit stand option was wrapped into the residual functional capacity as addressed by the l j the old days may properly rely upon a claimant's higher education classes in successes when brain weighing the testimonial evidence and that comes from bayliss and carmichael here the l g a also consider consulted a vocational expert and incorporated mr dooley's requirement of a sit stand option at well into and at these jobs could be performed by a person who often eat if you use a cane the vocational expert also further testified that his testimony was consistent with the dictionary of occupational titles here the dictionary is silent as to whether the jobs in question allow for a sit stand option but because of the dictionary a silent on the sit stand issue the vocational expert testimony supplemented the dictionary rather than conflicting with it because the l j properly analyze the record evidence of record the commissioner met her burden at step five by relying on the vocational expert's testimony that mr dooley was able to perform work as a sword or assembler and smith and surveillance systems monitor the  properly found that mr dooley was not disabled within the meaning of the act and the district court's decision should be affirmed thank you you thank  and pages eleven through twenty in my opening brief i summarize the significant medical clinical findings from treating physicians that fail jay never mention he completely ignored i had to summarize brief you want to see those you can sift through the file or you can look at my brief where i've gotten spelled out and the reason that the lot of these spelled out in such detail is there's not one word from any of that in the angie's decision the algaes failure to address all of that significant evidence fully undermined his his finding that there was not sufficient evidence to support dewey's complaints of the limitations on the symptoms he was right he was he was experiencing that's the evidence that supports his complaints but the l j didn't mention any of it once again it's that that's what i see that's the error here is l j cannot simply disregard clinical findings for forgetting of almost a year before the application date and continuing right through the the entire file it does about clinical findings are those complaints i'm talking about the clinical objective clinical findings here is when l j completely disregards gives no weighing whatsoever of any of those clinical findings what do we were viewing here we're reviewing an answer a decision that's not supported by substantial evidence because marsh he did not address significant clinical findings that support the claimants complaints just just undermines the entire analysis thank you very much thank you thank you both for your helpful arguments the matter of doing versus call them will be submitted