he had a cervical fusion and this is again almost a year later and after that cervical fusion we see that he had a lot of treatment from his treating treatment providers addition after that time he started complaining more about his legs and numbness in his feet and his legs with an x ray in july of two thousand and fifteen that show he for over a year he was unable to work and therefore he should be considered disabled and he his neck pain did get better and his leg  better with the use of oxy cold one the judge here they'll j erred and step two by not finding his cervical ridiculous pathy to be disabling before the surgery eleven months and then also after the surgery because he continued to have pain and he continued to have numbness in his hand and he the judge did not find lumbar spondylosis as a severe and pearman at step t l j also erred by relying on the report of a non examining consultant to overrule the objective reports to overrule the clinical studies and the consulted didn't even consider the lumbar spine allow impairments and he didn't consider the eleven and a half months between the date of the accident and the date of the surgery and he didn't consider whether my client relevant help me out well because to be disabled you have to be unable to work for a period of a year so i understand that but you say he didn't consider that that that was that was an undisputed fact  i'm trying to suggest how his failure to reference it was was something that should concern us so he should have said before you know for a year he did have market impairments he had a but i'm just focusing on that eleven month period that there's a change from what your clients condition was during that eleven months to what it was after that so how does the how to stop your  well if there was a close period that he could have been disabled for if he had really improved i guess that would be that he didn't consider it if your other arguments that are more concerned right  completely disabled that rules about how the way that would have been treated but that's not this case you're right and but we do have the objective tests we would why would there be an expectation that someone would think so well he did go he testified that made him dopey and that's why they call it dope and that's why it's illegal in new york to drive while driving while ability unpaired with the code on and he has credibility is a very important issue and the judge held it against him that he went shopping that he took care of his pets that he w alone but he was very honest about that and that he was also honest about how hard it was how we had to stop at times and rest and how he spent most of the day and a chair the court my name is peter jukes the commissioner of social security your honour's the commissioner's decision that went so as not disabled is supported by substantial evidence and free of harmful legal error therefore it should be affirmed st i'd like to discuss the medical opinions mr webb has argued that the l g afforded too much weight to the opinion of the medical expert dr fuchs and that i would have preferred that the l j gave greater w an hour each at a time both stated that he could never climb ladders ropes that he could occasionally be exposed to and protected heights they both agree that he was able to shop to travel alone to emulate without assistance  patient is necessary to alleviate the pain he suffers it does give him early and now now the question is what is the consequence of being on that kind of a strong record to the side effects when mr russell applied for benefits he denied problems paying attention he said he could finish what he started he could follow spoken and written instructions  and he had no trouble remembering things later in the treatment records specifically deny side effects on more than one occasion pages two hundred and forty five thousand two hundred and fifty one of the record on a different page of the record he says that he had side effects from his medication it's the tylenol that was mixed into the oxy coat on that lead him off the tylenol correction they tied her to a different version of the same drug that doesn't include the tylenol that was upsetting a stomach there's nothing in the offered to him injections physical therapy and he declined to do so now he may have declined to do so for financial reasons but he was able to record demonstrates that he was able to afford the treatment that he added i'm taking as well as the record supports the record shows that he travels florida he travels to maryland he has hobbies that he takes we believe that the record shows that these side effects support the elders interpretation here  or range of light moreover dr future his opinion is consistent with the treatment records of the roughly two dozen examinations by treating sources in the rel period about fifteen you noted completely unremarkable or normal findings and the others exhibited only slightly abnormal or mild findings and did then the record demonstrates that the identified by the vocational expert it's step five are consistent with that r f c toll collector office helper and inspector and hand packages to your honor i i drove to western new york this weekend and i saw toll collectors all between here and western new york but the length of time that this will be a job is fine i don't think that's a possibility at some point in the future but i  sorts and distributes incoming mail and collects seals and stance outgoing mail they deliver oral and written messages collect industry paperwork such as records or time cards from one department to another there are roughly twenty thousand such positions in the national economy that what about in the economy where mister respectfully your honor that's not a relevant consideration under the act the security act which speaks only to the national numbers so he would have to find a job as an plastic products such as tops for defects packs inspected products in the shipping cartons and the like all of them none of those three jobs requires handling and reaching more than frequently which is application he was very honest the what he could do and i think that bolsters his credibility at his hearing he testified several years later of what his limitations using his hands that he dropped things talk about the numbness that he could barely walk and then spend half the day in the recliner that none of the doctors thought he was exaggerating and in fact they mentioned and as a matter of law when on examining gawked or you would need to find by clear and convincing evidence let his opinion was more valuable or had more weight than the treating physicians  part of a clinical determination there is no objective way to assess pain there's no objective way to assess numbness and paraphrases which are very reasonable results of remain and for a new hearing i think the judge erred by giving too much weight to dr fuchs and there is not substantial evidence to support this decision thank you