thank you your honor and may it may please the court my name is matt richter i'm here on behalf of michael sauce the salient question in this case is whether jail j adequately constructed the requisite logical and accurate bridge between the evidence and her wholly implicit residual functional capacity conclusion that appellant would never experience d o t d induced time off task over the course of the work day or work week or even a work  month and the answer that question is resoundingly no as gail j in her decision did not even pondered the question of whether appellant pulmonary impairments which required he engaged nebulizer treatments every six hours for maintenance of baseline pulmonary function and as needed for exacerbation whatever be up task in a work setting the things she did not logically articulate how she concluded a person who over the course of two years had to be mention the advanced she did not logically plain how such evidence failed to support at least some time off past the part of the residual functional capacity in fact she didn't even entertain the possibility it's rather confusing to imagine how the social security administration can argue it's adjudicated build a logical knackery bridge to her conclusion when a decision does not even contemplate the possibility of the opposite conclusion that appellant would from time to time absent from work as a result of these pulmonary exacerbations and the treatment he required to maintain normal baseline of functionality  the evidence to her or her ultimate conclusion and unless the court has any further questions i would just say that her failure to to to do that requires remain we respectfully submit that the issue is not whether they could have imposed an off task limitation to accommodate such a possibility and said and this is a critical point the issue is whether the evidence compel that conclusion mr sawyer disagrees with the l g s reasonable interpretation of the evidence and is asking this court today to reweigh the evidence your honour's the threshold for substantial evidence review as you know is not a high one as the supreme court explained in the basic and it calls for deference to the presiding administrative law judge who saw the hearing up close and it's an even less demanding standard than the clearly erroneous standard of review which itself is very deferential mr sawyer simply fails to satisfy his indisputable burden of demonstrating that the administrative law judge failed to consider evidence showing that he would need to use the nebulizer at certain times of the day or for specific periods of time in substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge its decision in and mr sashi benefits we respectfully would ask this court for an affirmative of this less than three single spaced pages in her decision to a comprehensive analysis of mr sessions c o p d history and finally she included functional limitations in her determination of mistress asha's residual functional capacity specifically to avoid concentrated exposure to humidity and extreme cold and heat and to avoid even moderate exposure to fumes odors dust gases chemicals and poor ventilation furthermore the algae properly acknowledged mr sessions exacerbations in which he required either emergency department treatment or hospitalization however it must be remembered your honor is that the most recent of these exacerbations occurred in may june th teen approximately two years before the administrative hearing in this case after june th in mr john mr sessions treatment records demonstrate no significant evidence of breathing difficulties or disabling abnormalities and in fact in february two thousand and sixteen nurse practitioner jennifer bo noted that mr sashi had not needed to use even his rescue inhaler recently and in fact was doing very well now this is not to say mr sashi no longer requires as nebulizer we agree the medical record demonstrate demonstrates regular prescriptions for nebulizer refills but we submit that this evidence by itself is insufficient to disturb the l g a as well reasoned determination significantly mr sashi is unable to provide specific evidentiary references  stablish ing the frequency or the duration of his actual nebulizer use and in fact nurse practitioner bo does not even refer to mr sachs as use of a nebulizer and concluding that mr sa should be off significant limitation on his functional capacity after all this is the sole argument that he presents on appeal secondly mr saucers represented by an attorney at his administrative hearing  question mr sashi at the hearing about each of his various and parents and when he asked about or when she asked about his c l p treatment mr saunders testified that he used to end hailers during the day and an emergency puffer if it gets real bad and then quoting mr stosh quote and then i have a breathing machine at the house that i do to end of quote finally he indicated that he took a pill at night time missing from this exchange your honour's is any indication mr savage needs to use his nebulizer machine every six hours or even every day for that matter th and finally his attorney no further clarification on this issue and in fact mr saunders did not make this an issue until he got to district court we submit that if mr sosh in fact regularly needed to use his nebulizer every six hours his testimony and his treatment notes what every flecked of this given the medical record in front of her the l g s decision is supported by substantial evidence and should be up now with regard to nurse practitioner bo's medical source date meant the administrative law judge properly considered nurse practitioner is opinion that mr sachs would be off task ten percent of the work day and would be incapacitated for a week by as much tax four times a year however contrary to mrs bowse opinion the administrative law judge noted mr sessions treatment records from october and december th in and january through may twenty six showing an absence of significant breathing sixteen chest x ray showed clear lines and by december of two thousand and sixteen just months before his hearing mr sought his lungs were clear and his treatment notes demonstrated no continuing or further breathing difficult finally mrs bowser opinion was also and consistent with mr such as pulmonary function test showing only mild c o p d with declined values for these reasons the l g s decision not to give significant weight opinion also was supported by substantial evidence so for all of these reasons your honor as we would ask that this court uphold the o'jays decision to deny benefits and unless there are any questions thank you for your time nebulizer even more frequently than he was what what i heard the the court to remember here is that the a l j concluded that mr such would never never be off that as did not give any sort of rationale for coming to that conclusion listing the evidence which logically supports your socialist contention merely listing that does not