one hundred pounds right and she did that for many years and i'm going to spend most of my time unless you direct me otherwise on how of persons long arduous work history ought to be analyzed in relation to their credibility and there's not a lot of case law in this circuit on the issue and that's why i cited other circuits but the point is that especially in this case the credibility as to her paying complaints in various joints on her body are important and you've got to ask yourself if someone did put themselves through this kind of physical punishment throughout their life in order to maintain work would be fibbing when she finally can't work anymore and she's at least entitled to an analysis by the administrative law judge on that type of issue in relation to her continuous and arduous work history so here's here's the problem i mean it's it's just a generic problem in these cases credibility we always say is for the original finder of fact in this case the a l j and it is one of those things that one resolves in a holistic way right you know you can make all the lists of factors you want in the next case is going to have some other consideration that probably legitimately bears on it so i'm not sure how much we would accomplish if we said you want to take into account this person's work history since i think people know that it's that it's an overall  this is coming from somebody who does lots of these cases at the administrative level despite all the regulations and despite as much as we try to standardize and it's it's extremely arbitrary as to who the judge is and if if if these decisions have the certain amount of arbitrariness maybe that cannot be removed from the system they ought to at least go through factors and explain themselves especially in the cases where it's obvious that someone really really tried hard to so so you're saying to me i think because if i'm in understanding you know that given the fact that there are a large number of male jays out there that it's actually affirmatively useful for consistency of results to have maybe even a long checklist yet some kind of list of things that they're all told we need to think about this don't think have that already in the regulations in the processing i don't believe in environment correct apologized but i don't believe that of the work especially if we're dealing with an unskilled work person none of yours how much of a how much have they lifted how much to punish your job punish your body the other thing is have they  had serious injuries that that they've recovered from and then they've gone back to try to work again the and perhaps even after judge in this case for example says oh i believe her on her shoulder pain but i just believe her when she tests testifies about or not disbelief her but not totally belie when she testifies about her hip problems or back problems or neck problems yes you did have the hip replacements she did  and i mean some of them are better than others i guess some people manage to come back to pretty much full functionality and other people don't ask direct so the question is when it comes down to believe ability why doesn't she get the benefit of the doubt when she essentially done what peyton manning has and after ever surgery goes out there and tries again at great risk to factors let him let him go through this analysis and then after they go through this analysis let's see if it's really logical and they might even come to a different conclusion once they go  so that's roughly the work history issues hours of the rest of my time that's all right all right that's fine thank you credibility assessment judge would point out correctly it is a holistic analysis and we do look at the many many factors which the l g actually set forth first and then explained in pretty extensive detail in this case and w decision she's she doesn't seem like somebody who you know can just sit down at an office and learn excel while actually well i think that the l t a looked at her allegations very carefully and looked at the examination findings and the innumerable medical opinions none of which said that she was more limited than what the l j found she had an image of a burst activities and she took care of several paths dro to visit her family and friends a regular basis cooked did a lot of housekeeping responsibilities you know running back and clean or like the laundry people have to do housekeeping and we've made this point before it doesn't penetrate the administrative law judge who sculls you cannot generalize from what people do at home to what they can do in an eight hour job under supervision if you're in your home you were when you feel up to or you don't have regular hours you don't have a supervisor but of course you have to live so there are people who are disabled but do things that they should be given their disability because they have no alternative i think in this case the l g didn't rely totally on their activities  its handling of the testimony by the administrative law judge so in the only other opinions i've seen the administrative law judge will state in his or her opinion what the limitations are on this person and then we'll ask the vocational expert in light of those limitations what can these people do and how and how many jobs are there locally reaching in there now miss a larger didn't do that she didn't say anything about the limitations all we have is we have we have the time she falls over because she can't balance that well there are certain types of jobs just present that would require balancing for a certain period of time and what do you mean balancing for a period of time she stands up straight for five minutes and falls over what i think that in this case it would be that she could at some times maybe pull things and and stand without calling it a first of all  forget that occasionally she's able to crouch and crawl do you believe that she's five seven she waited she weighs two hundred  seventy five pounds she's in her fifty's you really think that is part of her work she would she could have a job which involved crouching or crawling just to because are you referring to the hypothetical question that the l j posed i know i talk i'm talking about the vocational experts testimony ordinarily this material would appear also appear in the administrative law judge's opinion but it does we have the testimony oh i was looking at the transcript where the hypothetical with the limitations you were concerned about were presented and then to be testified in response to that you're talking about in the decision well it doesn't matter what i think i think it's what the vocational i used trance to add any but a reasonable sane person could think that this woman is capable of a job that involves crouching and crawling well i think someone who babysits part time two toddlers four days a week would probably be expected to do at least a little bit of crouching and crawling to get down to those little people's level but that's what's in the record you know it show i think that's hydrological question assume that yes i think that's true out well i think that that's what the state reviewing doctor found that she could do and that's what the l g relied on and since she can't climb ladders there's no need to mention scaffold because they're also scofflaws life or window washers no climbing their flat surface they're raised so she's supposed to be able to lift twenty pounds but then the other hand she's got this problem with the shoulder and what the what he said was  the difference between the dominant hand and not down in the head is not actually specified in the dictionary of titles so i would rely upon my shift experience on how those jobs are actually performed to make that determination that she can do this work right now what is the experience that he is referring to i think that as he's described in his job qualifications he has a background in rehabilitative services as well as in some special education he's consulted with many companies on how to accommodate individuals with as i mentioned at the what is the reason to think that he has never had a case before involving a person with a dominant non dominant hand he doesn't say what i think his qualifications speak to fitted haitians don't show that he's actually confronted this particular problem i don't know that he responded to anything relating to the dominant versus non dominant exposure that he's had but at the same time just posner i think that the exploration of his experience with that could have been john by mr forbes who was at the ministry of hearing and he didn't raise any challenges so given the lack of challenge to the bees tussling shepherd the point is the vocational expert never gave any reason to think that he actually is dealer account investigator this is defied the d o t a person who visits dealers to verify purchases financed by a bank that has physical inventory of merchandise unskilled person does i think it's just practice as such in the resource that the ve garden light upon yes it's described as such yes it is not requiring a great deal of time in i don't know how mysterious it is i think it's probably someone who works at walgreens behind the photo counter and receive orders from customers is my common sense interpretation oh he's processing film it's not just you know orders cracked and i'm assuming that unskilled work that we have a process well well i i have done it that the old fashioned way and i think that now they probably have a machine to do it automatically and i soon that that's what this could given her obesity and her other conditions she actually capable of standing and walking in six to eight hours a day five days a week well that's what the state agency reviewing physicians found judge and also the she was looked at by treating and examining physicians orthopedic specialist and no one and that she was more greatly limited than that and i while you're looking i just want to ask this question an l j rejected hill's testimony in part because she stopped taking narcotic pain relievers and she only complained about that thing intermittently you recall that part of that cra but the ale j i don't see anywhere where the ale j don't with the possible explanations for doing that because she didn't have health insurance the doctor was worried about her being addicted to these painkillers crap and that back and neck pain could have been related to her shoulder and hip pain which is the l j conceded or not conceded but found that she really did have that shoulder pain left shoulder p s right not on the right though i think the regarding her i'm sorry to you know but all i'm saying is in terms of the back pain and everything which could clearly be related to the shoulder pain part of what they ok so it was a problem was she didn't see the doctor regularly she wasn't using the drugs and there's there's a reasonable explanation for that which was not address but she saw that the record reflects at least examinations and some march of two thousand and twelve with dr smith her treating primary care physician and at none of those  examinations did she ever complain of the type of low back pain that that she's alleged now so i think that there were opportunities for her to bring those up and the examinations didn't reveal any types of findings that would have supported  the extent of pain she was talking about and the l t also relies on imaging results from the lumbar spine the m r i results that did not show significant limitations and that was no brief questions for you one is one of the judges who says one of the jobs the v said she could perform is a semiconductor bonder this is defined as tending an my i mean i i think that i'm she did previously work for a long time judge as a prophet parader which press operator in heavy machinery which certainly required some degree of skill to i don't know how it's come on do you think there's an election every week i can't speak to exactly what has speak to do you have any idea of the frequency of elections i certainly do judge but i don't well you know th the election is not held every wish of course but i think being an election clerk could not be a full time gainful employment i don't know the exact requirements of such a position or whether there would be the improbably defined selection cler as full time gainful employment you check into that and see whether that is that is conceivably the case i can only the wrong number he may have to make far more plausible well should don't you check the numbers of the that you check you the light you mean within the job categories the three or so yes that is correct on transcript sixty five i i think that four thousand in the state overall decision and acknowledge that that was that was an issue by i also noted that over the counter medications that she was receiving did help reduce her pain significantly so i think it was considered and on balance to l j concluded that the medications that she still had access to that weren't going to be of an addict of nature did alleviate a great deal of consider it anything further mr for