her physical exam to try to a number of abnormalities unfortunately for playing out she had no outside insurance and she was basically locked into the workers compensation medical program where and she was out denied any  access to any kind of medical treatment outside of workers comp by which comp doctors and she the only type of medical treatment she was able to get was physical therapy and then when and a number of examinations her straight leg reg was like razors positive on a couple occasions showing that she did have that actual herniated disc and then after the work or after the physical and he let the last appointment record shows that they had a what conversation about whether or not she was going to have any kind of improvement in the future and dr sturm so the medical pain was the fact that if he didn't see days a week from home and doing what she could do from there obviously what's wasn't a full time job and then one day a week she came into the office and in those days i she was really if she had having problems doing the sitting standing walking for a workers comp and then basically you had to resign because the tories at the time she was released said well you know now you have to come back to work you're really smart st comp so she tried she went back to work and shortly after that she was unable to whole forty hour work week at all so she had to resign from the job at that point it seems like and you want us to take that action opinion both place right that it was inadequate because he released her without any restrictions because it was the worker's comp system but yet his comment about well maybe you know if you were able to record thirty hours a week you could see improvement you know sooner you know six or eight months well it's probably something that the minister of logic should have asked and that's one of the big points we made day and that was basically the only kind of treatment she was able to get a record also shows that she was very restricted in her activities duties daily living with her family basically helping her with everything her husband help the rich washing her hair bathing her her kids when she had four children who are older and span an older age and they helped her with everything cleaning shopping she couldn't attend her her children's activities even when they were close to home she was just basically unable dissipate her family events or any activities of daily living and lastly they had a last piece of evidence is kind of that later on when they had the center out for a consult examination which was actually very telling and and you know how much she straight leg brace at that point the st time i've been with both legs showing up you know possible or ruptured lumbar this she had lost sensation and they all five distribution which is another child tale sign of pressure long artist as well as a lot of loss of actual arguments of the step three argument the so sure purity act basically says that we each step has to be laid out in understandable language with and stammer reasoning and there's barnett stealing br santa the same proposition that you have to have some evidence discussed at step three for for the judge this step three are going to stand that there is some tension in the circuits with the curve in case which basically allows that they've is basically say well as long as the judge later on somewhere in decision discuss this evidence and it pertains to step three kind of a backwards argument then then that's been the step three argument there somewhere but now bring it back and say we can make this argument that the judge considered all this stuff but it wasn't at this depth and doesn't look even speak to each of the elements in the step three to that's that was the problem full time job both these things happen here the judge basically said that she could take care of her kids well she said she was unable to take care of her children in the could children basically took care of themselves because they're older they actually helped her  evidence shows that she had trouble washing your hair and taking care of her bathing and her husband helped at that they decision says she can sit stand and cook with no problem and the evidence shows that she had trouble sitting and standing for by the rulings and i've seen this and it seems maybe a little bit mechanical but i've seen this in many many cases of the time and we're going to get you have the seven functions and if they're not addressed each one by one usually comes back somewhere in decision as you know what are the actual capabilities of this plaintiff because they are not addressed if you say sedentary and then they'll go on to say well you can sit for hours and stand for four hours we'll know that's terry that's not light so without having to go function by function through what each of these limitations are usually comes back to create some kind of confusion in a decision that that kind of models up the decision somehow described later in the pinion is if unless this function by function later in the brain and it really doesn't it's not really very helpful and the last till the last  record page four hundred and thirty she has an active family life at home for boys as i recall that can be difficult to keep up with maybe she gets to cut back her hours he's made her work hours something were reasonable i will give  asked the doctor about her condition and how it could improve down the road and doctor as has been judge barrett you are one hundred percent correct that this was about her job at the funeral  this point in time as far as the record shows she was not at home the record is unclear as to when she began she definitely testified that there was a she was allowed to go work at home and she  he says a coworker were absent for a week for a week and she had to work at fifty five hour week and then it goes on to where it says some days she was so busy she could not even take a little three and that would be fifteen minutes then more customers would com that sure sounds like she's in the office now even if that is debatable that is a record from april of two thousand and sixteen if you look at the earlier records also from dr sturm they all talk about her being in the office if you have are at record page four hundred and twenty five doctor stir up whatever as we start discussing it further it sounds like me she can do her entire regular job she just avoids awkward lifting which would not be something n you're conducting the listing ultimately the proof is in if the claimant is actually able to work the listings analysis it's harmless error no matter how it came that was an air for him to say nothing more than his conclusion absolutely in this case the l j when doing the list analysis cited a specific listing at issue which is completely different than what happened i would show she can't work because the listing level is a higher level the standard is higher it's a short cut but if you go down the normal path to disability and you don't take that it should show that she's not disabled when you get to the residual functional capacity body to do other work and here it's simply did not this is not a list it's case pallant counselor at the hearing that's why you don't even have to discuss how much she can actually do when you have a listings analysis you don't have to look at strength you don't have to wait standing ability you don't have to look at any of that because it is so extreme asked what she does on a typical day she takes care of the kids and will try to relax and take care of herself she does the cooking cleaning grocery shopping and handles the the l g is titled to rely on those statements and l j egg knowledge there was conflicting evidence from what she said at the hearing but the elton's job is to weigh the good and that's what the l g did  that basically it showed that she would that is simply not the case what happened is dr johnson conducted his examination and then the state agency reviewing dr chan reviews all the records including dr johnson's examination and the conclusion was for light work not sedentary so when you have a doctor review another doctors coming to the function by function analysis the social security ruling at issue here is addressed by judy caters making an initial claim that covers a wide gamut the people making initial claims are the state agency disability reviewers it could be also the state agency doctors that review it will also involved when it gets if it gets to appeal to get me if they seek a hearing it will include in his or her decision the function by function the function by function else this occurs in almost every case because if you look at the state agency doctors opinions and these are in the record medium work they don't do it in exertional capacities they actually do lifting pulling standing walking so if you're if the demand is there absolutely positively must be somewhere in the record the strength demand before even now counsel has not made any attempt to show why that argument is under any stand