how are you i'm good how are you a please the court my name is jim shift and i'm here on behalf of the plaintiff deborah has only this is a social security disability case in which the administrative law judge made several errors and we are asking this court to reverse on three main assessing mr sally's residual functional capacity for a little bit of background in august two thousand and seven mr zolli was injured while working as a customer service representative at wal mart when a customer with a full cart of items ran directly into her lower back and she subsequently saw dr deal though her treating physician and a sports medicine doctor for treatment of her lower back and saw her seventeen times between august two thousand and seven and september two thousand and ten dr de loach diagnosed degenerative disc disease with osteoarthritis she noted that mr zoe was obese with a height of five foot two and the weight of two hundred thirty one pounds and noted clinical findings of tenderness of the mid to lower lumbar spine numbness in her legs weakness in her legs and pain with prolonged sitting standing and walking you know these cases that involve are are re our in this case for contending the credibility finding was improper because the l j did not consider the qualifications that mr kelly placed on her activities and made improper inferences as to how often she was doing them and to what degree of difficulty she had  example mr zolli was using a motorized cart to go grocery shopping but all the dale j said in his decision was that she was going grocery shopping twice a week but the fact that she was a motorized cart is relevant because he found that she could be on her feet for up to six hours a day even if she could alternate sitting and standing and he thought that she could do light housework but he did not discuss the testimony indicating that she was taking breaks in between the chores so there are some concerns about the degree to which l j analyze the evidence properly so i'm going back to the opinion of the treating physician found that there was no basis no medical basis for the l j to continue the four hour work restriction after september two thousand and seven after mr zolli attempted to work out but failed and we contend that this was an improper medical conclusion because the m r i evidence was actually worse in two four hour restriction was reasonable at the time of her injury then the forest direction in our view should have continued because there isn't any evidence in this file that mr sally's pain had any kind of prolonging improvement she would get a few hours of relief from the pain injections and she even had a procedure where the pain management physician use radio waves to burn the ends of her nerves to try to relieve the pain and it didn't work  and we also want to point out that mr shelley was getting chiropractic treatments and physical therapy she had lumbar injections and the most she ever got was six hours of pain relief well that's that's what her testimony was right but that's what they found exaggerated essentially not not in conformity with the medical evidence and to the extent that the attack on the agency physicians had to do with their has to do with their failure to account for the latest m r i evidence i was concerned about that initially but the specifically accounted for that said the pain doctor the tr said the findings were essentially unchanged it's it's the same degenerative disc disease you know affecting the same locations of the lumbar spine and you know it's under moderate control but it's such a lee is the this is what i can glean from the opinions it's still there but it's not completely under control well you know with well the treating physician regulation twenty four a four fifteen twenty seven that states that when there are conflicting medical opinions social security generally affords greater weight to the opinions of treating physicians because of that examining  it would have been one thing if dr d low had treated mr zolli just one or two times but she treated her seventeen times and three years after ending her employment wal mart dr de los still believed that she could not work more than four hours a day and under from his patient that she was looking through the records it appears that dr deal contemplated she would be going back to work and then she reported pain and that resulted in the restriction if as the l j apparently did you discount the credibility of her pain description what else and not the lows examination are in the medical records which support the restriction that you suggested which is well dr d low noted clinical findings  and she believed that those clinical findings would support a four hour stricture and those were tenderness in the spine and numbness and weakness in the legs interestingly on page six twenty two of the record  are restrictions stems from an actual trial the mistress ellie engaged in she was injured at wal mart was off of work for a few weeks and then she went back to wal mart to work at her job and after four hours of  job of sitting and standing and walking and lifting her symptoms returned and the symptoms were pain and because pain is very difficult to measure and a lot of that has to do with the credibility finding  as far as the state agency physicians opinions are concerned the only reason the l g a gave for adopting those opinions over the treating physician opinion was that they were familiar with social security rules and they were trained in familiar with applicable standards but if those sorts of reasons were enough to adopt a non examining physician over a treating physician then the opinions of the non examining state agency physicians would always be entitled to greater weight after another questions you'll say so i'll save some time for  work the l j noted in the decision that medium or is what the claimants dr was referring to when i was talking about the four hour restriction that he he put in the cat the l j put this  opinion in the context of stemming from that initial injury that happened while she was working as a medium exertion customer service manager at wal mart and he noted in the the decision at page thirty that that was something that he considered that that for that thirty thirty one at the top it talks about the up from dr dealer was in the context of the claim its ability to pour perform the  this limitation really only applied in the in the immediate aftermath of the injury for what the l j said was that that's where the  the opinion stemmed from and then at this point when he was looking at the later opinions that still assess a four hour restriction he is saying that the the objective findings don't support that the objective findings were were very normal actually throughout the chinese even at the time of the accident the m r i findings were showing only mild to moderate abnormalities in the spine and and that continued throughout the period there was no point where he placed too much weight for one what she was able to do in her day to day life i mean life house were laundry using your computer feeding your dogs letting them outside i'm not sure how the didn't equate the two he was making a credibility finding where he was looking at inconsistency is in the claim his statements in at the hearing she said when he asked her to describe her pain she said on a ten point scale where ten is you're screaming in the emergency room you know you've got to go right now to the emergency room she was at a nine and so when you're talking about that level of pain and then you're looking at daily activities that are at a fairly normal that would fit in the very restricted range of  functional capacity of the l g assess they'll tell you didn't say she could go back to a medium exertion job he actually found a very restricted range of work with a sit stand action and ultimately found that the claimant could go back to her jobs that were sudden terri the step for finding with her for three jobs that were basically clerical type jobs where she would be sitting for most of the day so this is this is a very restricted range of work that the l g found he cure be explained especially in light of her the city and the pain she maintains she experience i mean isn't it possible she might require war than ten percent of her time to make these adjustments that would be purely conjecture because none of her doctors said that she required any restriction of being i have to ask when changing positions that the problems getting up and sitting down changing positions may take a little bit longer but that's something that the l j i can read is that this is a generous accommodation not something that the claimant even claimed that she needed to do she didn't screa at the hearing that she had any loss of concentration or any trying to being have to ask when she was changing positions so really it was a very generous thing that they gave it and the identified you know the past work as thousand and seven and the commissioner also argues that a light work residual functional capacity finding is severely restrictive but what a light functional capacity finding really means is that every day day in and day out the individual must be able to lift twenty pounds for up to two and a half hours a day they have to be on their feet for up to six hours a day and even though the judge gave her a sit stand option a ten percent off task time is only six minutes out of every hour so an individual with arthritis and obesity and degenerative disc disease may require more time than that thank you