a question of what is or is not the deferential standards be applied to administrative law in this particular case we have three issues obesity the treating physician and then the testimony of the vocational expert simply indicated i have considered obesity at all stages without any further explanation without any analysis so the question is when you're applying the deferential standard is  one that it's enough that the l j says he considered it or does there have to be proper analysis it reminded me of the days when my kids were small and they would try to negotiate  punishment and i would say whatever their ask was it was well considered right before it imposed whatever decision i already made in this particular case there's just nothing indicating actually the part of the consult of examiners opinions regarding light and medium were based on there's no analysis they don't really say anything they don't say how they consider it and then with regard to doctor richest there's no mention of the obesity in his to sit her his opinion at all other or imaging indicating the browns or nerve root or spinal cord would compromise you know and really what we're talking about here is the difference between from here to here the differences she had as he described herniated discs noted on m r i in two thousand and five but when and then he put her on this level of restrictions there's only one answer and i think the record is clear in his opinions as well as the medical evidence the differences is the coin that was weighing between three hundred ten and three hundred forty seven pounds the time this was done and case law in the circuit of said that you know when you have that kind of weight that body mass index of fifty to sixty that in another itself can enhance the underlying condition or exacerbate pain social security issued a ruling when they took obesity out of the list things used to be if you wait a certain amount you automatically qualify but they took that out issued a ruling and said we're going to consider obesity among all the various aspects of the cases under orthopedic and under diabetic and all the other different things except it's gone to the other extreme which is that obesity is almost never considered by anything or if it is it's done in passing fancy and so in this particular case that's the difference and again ask you this are you contending that the arrow jr properly rejected dr shannon's opinion as to listing one point zero four c or are your only concern with his opinions about sitting standing rest time in absenteeism equal that has to be a agency doctor to do that qualify there could have been an issue raised as to whether because he made that the l g a in this part of his duty to develop the record should have called a medical expert to address that issue but it wasn't done and i didn't feel that that was the strongest point to go forward but that it's in that area with his opinions about sitting standing and rest time if you're saying he substituted the opinion of the treat believe i counted she was taking upwards of twelve oxycontin a day that she was prescribing so obviously if he's been treating her for this long and prescribing that level of narcotic pain medication he's believes there's probably a significant issue because doctors putting his own reputation if not his license a line describing that level medication for somebody who's just  the standard is supposed to be whether you can trace the l g s path of reasoning but i can't for the life of me after having read the decision now a dozen times or more a see where his path of reasoning is i see his conclusion but i certainly don't see the path that led to that conclusion and that's ultimately the question and he also indicated that he considered again the consultant of examiners medical records the state agency doctors but they indicated there's nothing conclusive in any of those that state obesity was actually considered or evalu briefly i just wanted to address the vocational expert issue as well and that is this clearly the occasional expert at hearing testified specifically that said stand up and being off task was were questions made about it and the only information that the judge had was in and of itself her experience but we have no idea what her experience is on those issues sol if there morning may it please the court and allison schwartz and i represent the acting commissioner of social security i would like to address an item with respect to the obesity issue that mr  raise when mr duncan was arguing he mentioned that the consultative examiners and the state agency physicians is not appear to consider mr brown's obesity and i would like to point out that that is in correct the state agency doctors there were two of them diagnosed her with obesity the first references on p g seven of the record the second reference from the second doctors mild to moderate examination findings and diagnostic images that that were normal her obesity her extreme obesity in which she had referred to it coupled with her back pain warranted greater restrictions than those set forth in the three medical opinions and thus imposed a residual functional capacity finding of sedentary work with us to stand option now the reference daily activities such as cooking in childcare have we cautioned against waiting these sorts of activities with the ability to work an eight hour day yes you have your honor but in this particular case the elegy did not equate those abilities with the ability to work full time with an eight hour day rather what the l j did which has been affirmed by this court recently in both was looked at the claims of disabling limitations in this case they were imposed by the doctor and compare those against her activities which showed that she was walking daily  limited as dr shannon had claimed him and if so he he basically substituted his views for those of the of the treating physician are you are mean and needing multiple breaks per day were not supported by his treatment notes by ms brown statements to dr shannon by mr brown's statements about her activities as well as the neutral consultative examiners exam and the diagnostic images so for there in these then they all j under took his burden under the regulations and the social security ruling and looked at all relevant evidence and determine the residual functional capacity that was fitting for my statement but the sure to give reasons let's let's assume what you just said is this is accurate standing and needing multiple breaks limitations were not supported by his own treatment notes which showed multiple things that showed examinations from two thousand and three to two thousand fourteen that showed at most mild to moderate limitations in range of motion normal gait normal strength and normal reflexes as well as numerous that her dosage had to be increased from time to time but that it mean it helped her pain and allowed her to remain active and walk and exercise and in fact dr shannon consistently encouraged her to lose weight and never discourage her from maintaining activity if i may i would like to briefly turn to the time i have left to the vocational exper well there was nothing in mr dr shannon's treatment notes which contained voluminous purt accounts from mrs brown about her abilities that suggested that she needed to take multiple breaks throughout the day or that she had any issues with sitting rather the treatment notes show that she reported that she was able to maintain a consistent level of activity and that when she overdid it for example if she walked two hours at a time her her pain would exacerbate and get worse so the l j looked at over a decade of treatment notes and found that nothing in there suggested that she wasn't able to set to perform sedentary work which were jobs that were almost all sitting with a inability to ship positions to say stan throughout the day and i'd like to briefly just touch on the vocational expert testimony  mr duncan mentioned that the vocational expert did not explain the bases for her testimony about a sit stand option and a time off task other than to note that it was just tricks perience but i would like to correct mr duncan and state that that's not true the vocational expert mentioned that she had placed several people in jobs that and provided specific examples of jobs that she placed people in that were seated she also noted that with respect to the time off task based on her experience ninety eight percent of people were off task most of the day and i would also like to just briefly touch on an argument raised in mr duncan's brief about whether  the court whether an administrative law judges should have an obligation to delve deeper into testimony that from a vocational expert that's on contradicted at the hearing and what the court should consider is what a reasonable rule is and here if we have mr duncan who was at the hearing below if as he did here a claimant's attorney stipulates to a person who testifies as a vocational expert and that attorney does not challenge the vocational experts testimony at the hearing then any subsequent challenge to that testimony should be waived and nail j should not be faulted for not seeking a deeper dig deeper dive into the testimony and that was the rule that this court imposed over a decade ago in johnny you and it's a reasonable rule and we believe that the court should reaffirm it and if the court has no further in this case again we're talking about the doctor's treatment notes but yet he doesn't the l g doesn't spend any time going through the treatments so centrally exactly where there is the conflict where's the problem where is it that his notes do not match up with what his findings and i can't find anywhere where he explains how other experts testimony were more reliable or any reference to the treatment knows now where we were there were over a dozen individual ones assessments and repeated references to chronic pain crack and moreover the claimants testimony unlike an lot of hearings this is the fourth go rock the three previous decisions one that was not appealed then there was one issued by judge zalman then a previous one by judge ploys so he had the benefit of having all of the claimants testimony over for hearings that the transcript would have been available to see exactly what she was talking about for limitations she talked about being unable to even pick up a gallon of milk due to pain she had difficulty in two thousand and six she had been walking and apparently exacerbated her condition and ended up in a worse situation which is then where the milligrams in the morning and then twenty milligrams three more times the other thing i can indicate is that i did talk with the claimant i'm just last night and about her condition and she's still treating she did