has been in several motor vehicle accidents which injured his cervical spine and his lumbar spine he had surgery on his cervical spine in march two thousand and four but never fully recovered and has been experiencing severe pain as well as postural and manipulative limitations for many years edgecombe has attempted to return to work several times and in fact were worked largely part time between two thousand and nine two thousand and eleven quite a bit but by november two thousand and eleven he couldn't keep it up and he was unable to continue working after he stopped working in november two thousand and eleven he went to the doctor and he actually went to a nurse practitioner nancy armstrong she had a cervical spine the record it's dated three months before the hearing but the ala jay failed to discuss this evidence that's the big error here that's the elephant and that's the obvious error when there's new evidence disability he can't bend more than fifty degrees but then he puts his shoes on easily he complains that he doesn't walk very well but then you walk he walks out of the parking lot and he's walking great i mean this is sort of this is almost parenting matic the insurance company films the guy playing golf what do you make of this that we've got not just one but several reports where the doctors say after i've examined him and he's now just how i can acting on his own he's no looks a lot better than on the want he was reporting and symptoms to me what do we do with that because that strikes me is that i was ample basis for an adverse credibility fine i'm not discussing first of all that what most of the evidence that you're just talking about this is this case his injuries date back to two thousand and four his and that he did not apply for benefits until i believe two thousand and nine he applied in two thousand and seven well as well but i think the issue with regard to what you're what you're describing is that his pain fluctuates quite a bit for example there's a tween the time he's being examined the time he walks out of the office yes even between that because for example there is instances there is one there is one thing that you have to add to what judge fletcher just ask you does allege disability from two thousand  not relevant because he is he is alleging disability from two thousand and four and exactly and i was hearing your answer and i was saying to you out can you get there ok well over a course of eight years his condition has fluctuated considerably he improved enough to where by two thousand and nine he decided to go back to work to try to find jobs he could do and he worked several different jobs and the third job that he did actually reach the level of substantial gainful activity for about six months so we're not actually asking you to find him disabled since two thousand and four that would not be reasonable and i agree with you that do are time periods where where his functionality fluctuated enough that you just can't you it's hard it's hard to know exactly what's going on but i should also add that this file is missing evidence from two thousand and four to two thousand and files are complete because the l j although in earlier applications for benefits l j never obtained those files so we don't have that evidence i can't fully address what's not in front of what's not in front thousand and eleven that he could do anything more than sedentary work there's no evidence that since november of two thousand and eleven that he could function in any type of full time  work there were several psyche a psyche psychiatric and psychological evaluations in the file three there were two about you atre isn't there was one person who just non examining person all of them concluded he was limited to simple work he's been on narcotic medication for a decade i mean he's been on it for a long time there is evidence in the file of a failed epidural steroid injection that occurred i believe was in two thousand and five that went wrong and it almost paralyzed arm for about six months since been a long standing thing but once again applications not till two thousand and nine and i'm not trying to prove disability two armstrong first because the a l j rejected her opinion because supposedly she didn't cite any objective evidence to support her opinion when in fact she the teen an m r i saw the m r i side of the attached to you or a valuation but l g said i would check your opinion because she doesn't cite any objectify nation she also did detailed range of motion studies range of motion studies are objective evidence by and knowledgeable person and maybe in respect to the question because i was going to ask similar question dr ho examined in august of two thousand and seven dr gere someone who is a treating physician then comes to the party in september two thousand and seven and one cannot say dr hall and dr gears agree then dr hurley comes to the party in two thousand and nine the l j doesn't agree with everything hurley says but does give some weight consistent to the record as a whole of the time evaluated so replying back to gears and and then dr kerrison comes in march of two thousand and eleven and what that hale j really does the l g a says dr gere son is the treat or he is the basis i'm going to throw out a whole because he doesn't agree i'm going to throw out hurley to the extent he doesn't agree and then dr garrison comes around in march two thousand and eleven and says i agree with pearson well what i mean so i want you to talk about his question but i don't want you to leave out that we have a medical record here as to whoa did what when ok so dr hope back to august of two thousand and seven detailed many clinical findings and ject of clinical findings that supported her opinion and she concluded that he could only stand or walk for two hours in an eight hour workday based on her objective findings shortly after that wasn't that long after that the dr grierson mentioned that he is walking he's walking as much as three miles a day and the l g a said he say walking three miles a day he also said he is functional he is does well on chronic pain meds he walks up to three miles a day all he wants are the meds and the parking card right but the point a little bit different than the whole ok it is different but there is not a comfort conflict between being able to walk a total of three miles in a day and being able to walk for two hours in a day because even a person walking with a kenyan can manage just three miles in two hours the other thing about the cane is everyone who says dogs with his dog has a small dog but everyone knew who it is i've met it  now i'm trying to say is i go out walking i don't have a dog but to me there's a total difference in he can walk two hours in an eight hour day and said for a total of six hours and he's been doing well on chronic pain he's functional he's even able to walk three day out miles a day with his dog well billy does it i don't know i think doing well on pain medication tells us that i mean honestly it did help him enough to where by two thousand and nine he returned to work we're not disputing that it helped him if you didn't help him he wouldn't have been able to walk for three miles and  no surprise that she didn't find that he was doing that badly then eight months later is when the m r i came out that showed that he had gotten worse and show it supported why symptoms are worse and that the evidence in this record shows just three weeks after the l g s decision he finally got to a neurosurgeon who said you need another round of neurosurgery on your neck so once again i don't i'm not going i'm not disputing i don't have to dispute dr opinion he was working then but from november of two thousand and eleven on he was not working and his neck was was so impaired that he couldn't work but that but here here's my problem if we're talking about subsequently to november two thousand and eleven i'm just reading from the ale dish report january two thousand and twelve performance this functional capacity evaluation report indicated considerable question about the reliability and accuracy of his report report noted that he left and dragged actually the testers even though they saw that even based on what they saw i concluded that he would need to be able to change positions frequently in order to be able to negotiate his symptoms they concluded that he was limited to sedentary to sedentary light were those are the conclusions they also found that there were some of the tests they administer he couldn't perform because he was afraid it was going to hurt him too badly and that's consistent with the fact that two months later three months later the neurosurgeon said yeah you need neurosurgery on your neck so the fact that he was not self limiting does not mean that he was not being honest with them at at about his limitations he's limping during the test and is walking normally when he goes out to his car heat his main problem is his neck not his lower back but they both affect him ok ok and his use of his cane through out the record is variable sometimes he needs it and sometimes he doesn't his ability to walk their ease depending on the position of his back and how he's doing that day so that's not a reason to completely reject when we hear from the government about it got a little time for  coal test which is the m r i and having gone through that process myself over the last year i can report in front of him why didn't he talk about the twenty eleven you know i do not know the answer to that i do know that  astronomer the general i do know that he talked about the two thousand and six and two thousand and seven m r i s and the two thousand and eleven was not materially different and that he spoke of nurse armstrong's report which the twenty eleven r m r i attached to it why he didn't mention it and that a complete loss but is that harmful i believe is the true question and it's not harmful because the twenty eleven m materially different from the two thousand and six and seven and are no functional limitations within an m r i so and the m r i is discussing his cervical spine issues which the i found be a severe records your opinion little weight and yet the m r i is attached and so but he but the reason the courts a little weight is it's inconsistent with one example medical source evaluation terminated it wasn't due to disability issues approximately six weeks later he has a twenty eleven m r i which as i said before is consistent with the other in that check was he agrees with dr hose lifting and those kinds of restrictions and yet he gives hurley some weight and and then goes on to rate that right the rest of this note which we have referenced and i'm sorry i'm i i believe it's sufficient that the findings unrelated to his capacity to work even though there's comments about it know what it why was he looking at that and i believe he sounds like an even a pain that but in doing so the doctor noted he's not disabled all the time it comes from when he sits in his car for a long period long period of time he might need it for that time first of all with regard to miss armstrong details he did discuss her opinion but did not because he didn't mention the m r i his statement that your opinion was not supported by examination findings or other objective evidence is false his his reason for rejecting her opinion is false it's cos it's not true and that's right november two thousand and seven what about what about the government's argument that it doesn't make any difference because it's not much different from the m r i as the high the l g a had already referenced and spoken about if that were true that's a  other we know that well you know it's funny i'm not a doctor and none of us are mature law doctors but the if the you can compare them in the file the previous ones do so the only thing he got to really worry about is this last m r i which nobody mentioned what dr grierson didn't say he could go back to work he said he needed a disability parking pass he said he needed to use a cane at times to l j use those comments about how you doing i'm doing pretty good use those comments to impeach dr hotez opinion about his limitations dr grierson didn't state an opinion about his physical limitations but what complicates this is a few years later despite having to use a cane and a service dog he went back to work any work for two and a half years only about like a six eight months for at substantial gains like timothy but at the i'm not i can't dispute dr garrison evaluation because it's i think you know he was doing better at the time he was working she a opined that you know that was her opinion how do you dispute that i was we can't so what does complicate this is between about two thousand and seven to two thousand and nine when he wasn't well enough to even go to part time work looks like he's a sample then what do you do from two thousand the night of two thousand and eleven he applies for benefits while he goes back to work does the best he can when he falls apart gets