good morning everyone our first case for argument this morning is best person is very h force thank you your honor may it please the court my name is randall for i represent the disability claim and he and i represented this particular disability claim and pretty much throughout the i guess i will start off with what i think is a and b your notes and backwards analysis argument i understand what the district court is saying today in the sense that the judge did spend a lot of time troubled by your argument you seem to think that if i start one of my opinions and announce in the first perjury off that we're affirming that everything else is obviously them which comes after that is reasoning to an expert the result already understand where you're coming from because this line of case law is not weighted hard and fast to th and you've got to look past the sequence to the substance but here as i stated it it reads as if lot from you this morning and a busy day so mr best's could use were there any doctors who imposed functional research restrictions upon mr best's that amount to complete three thirty seven which is actually two days after the alleged onset date i believe there is a statement of function which in of disability they could and the reason is that in the sedentary category and as of age fifty this claimant would have met the grid if and i know i bring this up quite a bit but it's important when when the disability case involves someone who has an gift given the effort to work like this claim because we constantly have to fight cases where the effort to work is a clue for but in this case is not a political there's there's great effort to work not only that there is effort to work after major surgeries and in fact in this particular individual's case there was effort to work after major surgeries where he'd be skill so he's getting more so what if the case boils down to credibility and we're under the old regulations on this case so that they'll physician  opinion rulings in the old credibility rulings and regulations still apply but if it boils down to whether you believe this particular claimant needs to take five days a month reason that i'm searching is that the function reports at the beginning of this case suggested that he could do some activity although i would contest that they don't relate express that completely but those happened in two thousand and thirteen the hearing happened two thousand and fifteen so you can't really take the testimony happens two years later and contra with with that and say oh it's inconsistent well the fact is that in these kind of cases especially back pain and neck pain the the pain waxes and someone like my client who really doesn't want to be disabled would rather work on the days he feels good he tries and then on the days that he feels really really bad that's true feels really really bad that so yes that that's kind of a slim read from the argument here just to claim that he has five  days a month is a little fake without some something to support that and the l j discounted as not credible based on the rest of the record so to send the case back to i mean it's just a question of how much weight that deserves and we don't send cases back because one item of testimony that the claimant says was given insufficient weight iron on and i'm ready to record differently here is a record with that mountain of evidence days i mean this this is a mountain of evidence this is this kind of evidence here is about as good as it gets in these kind of cases based on my experience  it's not just his testimony it's just testimony superimposed upon all the surgeries the fact that he needed a pain pump the fact that he was on high powered  medications to deal with the pain on top of the fact of his work history and on top of the fact that he said he is a honorably discharged veteran all it mr best testimony however in three briefs one of the district court and two to this court with all respect he points to no evidence he discusses none of the specific evidence that support this testimony or the allegations that he makes as to disabling impairments mr best attempt to match this case up with the arts and with all respect falls flat as this court is where we aren't involved in assessment of r f c before even looking at a subject of complaints or credibility determination that's not what happened here mr best is complaining because although the l j took his impairments one by one and provided analysis of these impairments she elected to include her thorough analysis of his diabetes and mental health complaints at a juncture in the decision that occurred after she enunciated the  however mr best does not dispute the elegies thorough discussion of the evidence pertaining to his diabetes and the mental health issues and the treatment that he received for those issues now a question was raised about whether there was an examiners opinion as to r f c in the record i confess i'm not aware of transcript page three thirty five to my knowledge the only somewhat statement of limitations in the record other than the state agency opinions was dr cameron any this was at age three eighty one this is a consultative examiner they o j address this opinion and properly found that at the conclusion of the record dr can in any merely sad mr gus states that he can stand for so many hours states that he can sit for so many hours these are clearly just a reiteration of what mr best said he could do but if you look at the body of the report itself the findings were aware that he was able to walk in tandem able to walk on his heels and toes his gait was stable there was no diminishment the leg strength the elderly properly noted mr has or sorry mr best's history of back surgeries but she noted properly that the last back surgery occurred sixteen years before his alleged onset date and mr best went back to work on a steady basis from one nine hundred ninety seven through two thousand and twelve and importantly they o j noted there was no diagnostic evidence of a worsening in his condition and this is undisputed went through and this is an eight page discussion thorough discussion of the r f c and the evidence the evidence that supported the r c in february two thousand and thirteen dr mannix on normal gave coordinations strength and reflexes with no sensory deficits in june july august of two thousand and thirteen dr maddox again found normal gait coordination strength and reflexes normal range of motion and no sensory deficit was august two thousand and thirteen doctors ohman reported that the reprogramming of mr best spinal cord stimulator helped his low back pain in december of two thousand and thirteen it was noted that mr best walks with a non type intelligent gave he's able to transition independently from sitting to standing and on and off the examination table february two thousand and fourteen you reported that his spinal cord stimulator health relieved as neuropathic like and we're not disputing the presence of pain keep in mind the object knowledge of the pain and properly dealt with it but the o j is driven by the evidence she looked at the evidence thoroughly looked at the evidence and and apply the evidence to the regulations and did what she's supposed to down if i made your honour's i'd like to address the the issue raised and mr best reply brief pertaining the stark case and the comparisons to start to this case mr best's points out some similarities between stark and the facts in this case i'd like to point out some significant distinctions secondly in stark as we've mentioned there are j got things backwards and based actually based the credibility finding on the previous finding about r f c here the o j did not do this third and finally it's stark the l g ignored evidence that stark wasn't even able to take her narcotic pain medications because of a hepatitis c diagnosis of course that's not present here there's a general rule griever work history who's often a very important indicator of credibility of claims of disabling pain yes it certainly can be and it is a factor that that should be looked at and they o j did address did address the fact that mr mr best work steadily i don't know that she used that as a as a driving factor in her credibility analysis one where the other certainly didn't use it against them but mr best one special mention of that work strong work record but he offers no argument that the l g a misread the evidence or that she eron of the factors that she's required to apply in evaluating his subjective complaints so i think honestly it comes down to an evidentiary problem in this case and again counsel points to the the mountain of evidence and with respect that i say where is the mound where is where what what evidence supports supports his claims neither agency policy or case law supports mr best argument issued one month before he stopped working i don't know but it's there i have looked at the opinion in depth and i'm i hope i'm not incorrect or i hope i hope i didn't miss anything but i look at the opinion in depth again i don't find any mention of absences or how they relate to all of the employment so that's ignored and certainly this work history is entitle to more than just a passing mention if that's the case this is the type of work history that needs to be analyzed and thoroughly discredited so that's a problem  obviously is not a perfect match most social security cases are not perfect matches because they are fact intensive on it based on individual medical histories but it is a