morning your honour's may please the court my name is jared walker on behalf of appellant nicholas mcmahon in this social security disability insurance appeal i'll try to reserve nice texas of my time if i may with respect to mr mcmahon's first issue in this case whether his spinal impairment satisfies the presumed listing of disability one point zero four a the basis of error we are urging the court to recognize is whether the medical evidence is where as in this case the medical evidence appears to satisfy that listing the ael j has a duty to analyze that to actually at step three of th sequential process where there's medical evidence that on its face appears to satisfy each criteria they o j commits reversible error when he or she just doesn't do any analysis at that step three well but it seems to me that your client has burden of proof in this area and that the burden is that you've got to show that you meet the listing and it seems hard for me to suggest that you meet the listing if you have ability to ambulate and therefore because you haven't shown you didn't have an inability damn you late i have a tough time understanding of the l j would have dared well your honor student so that's what the district court denied our step through argue i understand i read very carefully what the district court said and i looked at the record and i don't think there is any evidence  decision there was no analysis of the medical evidence my client submitted which i think it goes towards satisfying his burden of proof at the step three level but as to his burden of proof at the very least he did have to show atrophy associated with muscle weakness correct or muscle weakness and where was the evidence of that because as i reviewed the record there was the evidence was contrary to that there was no evidence that he produced not just of general motor loss but of atrophy with associated muscle weakness so that to me is the big question the the legal question in this case what sub part of this listening reads it includes a finding of motor loss parentheses atrophy there's a few other words in there close print the seas and century loss he's got sensory loss that's objective we found through three throughout the records the question is how do you interpret that parent that a coal we're atrophy is thrown in after motor loss motor loss is a very broad medical term that simply means the loss total or partial of somebody's part or  is a very broad medical finding and certainly there's other indications there's other ways to evidence motor loss other than atrophy so for instance the inability to emulate effectively the medical records demonstrate that his treating doctors repeatedly guarding with grimacing so i think there is evidence medically that was submitted to me my clients burden that motor loss including inability to ambulate effectively is there now i agree with you your honor the medical evidence is not clear as to whether or not there's atrophy but on the point of atrophy understand this man's injury was it occurred july two thousand and eight a lot of these medical records are two thousand and ten two thousand and eleven the atrophy findings on a clinical basis are comparing one lake one calf circumference to the other and so at that point if he's lost functioning if he's not ambulating to the same extent as he was previously the record is the medical records don't tell us whether the atrophy has already occurred because we're two years down the road or if you're claiming that there's bilateral impingement on the nerves and therefore the should bilateral atrophy i'm saying from a medical perspective that that's possible though the records aren't with we're not talking about possibility the talking about evidence point to the evans who bilateral  the core of his opinion was that mr mcmahon cannot sit more than four hours in a work day dr carlos suggests that could not  walk more than four hours our day there are viewing physicians concluded that he could stand and walk six hours in an eight hour day and then the j was to decide between the two ask you this it looked like the l j took note of the conflict the internal conflict between dr carvel ases records which reflected light duty he was capable of light duty throughout and the inconsistency of that with the final check the box form that said no more than four hours now do you know what the workers compensation standard is for light duty versus sedentary i can't say what the standard is for light do you what i can say is that the workers compensation ratings speak to what the claimant or person can't do the the the the question at the root for the residual functional capacity finding is what is the maximum that patient claimant can do and so there flips so a statement by dr carl bell isn't for workers compensation purposes that that this man must have limited worth modified work light duty work that isn't an affirmative finding that he can in fact sit stand six hours a day which would be the social susu security definition for light work or the standard that he would have to meet but that's the question to the bottom line for me and i pointed it out as best i could the differences as to walk and stand and had to give specific legitimate reasons for his rejection of what dr carlos said or he had to take that over the reviewing physician and he did he said he walked with a normal gait his pain was alleviated with facet an epidural steroid injections and acupuncture and therefore he said i'm not believing carville us i'm going to go with what the reviewing physicians say respect which is a which is a meets this meets the nature of what he's got to say so respectfully two points one a reviewing not examining physician can constitute a subversive stance to evidence by was to withhold nobody saying that i'm saying what he had to do is he had to give specific reasons why and legitimate reasons why he would reject the treating doctor's opinion and he gave specific reasons to reject and that's enough isn't it not with respect to those core opinions of dr carvel it's relating to sit stand and walk those that those issues were never specifically addressed by the sale jay and i  good morning your honour's elizabeth fear on behalf of nancy a burial the acting commissioner of social security the claimant does not meet this listing one hundred four it's his burden to prove that he met every element of the listing and no matter what we don't think that that listing does require the inability to emulate effectively but irrespective of that he doesn't need it and when you're talking about motor loss the listing absolutely requires motor loss and we don't have that here we have five five strength almost all the time and the only doctor who found anything less than that was dr shea who provided the for set in lumbar injections and he found four plus over five on one muscle which is the outside muscle in the calf which works to flex the big toe that's it that's not motor weakness that reaches listing level irrespective of anything else in the record but you also have to because there is lumbar involvement here the listing does absolutely require positive straight leg testing sitting and supine we don't have that in the record we have some positive straight leg tests but there is no evidence that the doctors did them in both positions and the documentation is not what required what is required in the listing the listing does require detailed documentation that's at one point d which is in the introductory section of the musculoskeletal list and it also requires that the  limitations stemming from one of these musculoskeletal conditions has to be severe enough to prevent a person from engaging in substantial gainful activity and here we have the claimant every most doctors find some level of light work you have dr shay's treatment records with the injections which are overwhelmingly positive it's just there are certain abnormalities in those records but you cannot deny that they document great improvement normal motor strength in the upper extremities and only that for plus in the one muscle they also absolutely always say normal gait and they just simply don't support the a listing level limitation with th spine condition so if you don't have any more questions about that i could move on to the doctor's opinions dr car valis does actually talk about the talk about dr carmela's to sit stand limitations on the top of page twenty two he says his opinion is generally supported by the record except for that and he says based on the discussion the previous discussion if you look at page twenty page twenty one of the elders decision the original pagination gives detailed discussions of the record and why no doctor ever saw this claimant uncomfortable he has normal it doesn't seem to be correct the the no doctor ever saw that this patient was uncomfortable or had difficulty sitting or standing there is the what is it called on just how much and i mean the idea of trouble moving from you know making positions while you're sitting because you're uncomfortable there's  of that throughout dr carvel usses record so when the a l j says no doctor has ever seen him having any discomfort sitting or standing it seems to me that objective lee in correct if you look at the if you review the doctor's records i agree that there is some of that in there i think the significant discomfort would be how i would characterize it dr see aagot the spinal consultant did say that he had some problems he had some discomfort when he got up from sitting through a long interview and tells you is just a limb so it's not necessarily and it doesn't carry throughout the entire record you look at doctor does say some of the limping but then d r who saw climate at least as often if not more every single time said normal so that doesn't way against the l j's rejection of dr cabela's and then you have the two state agency experts who look at the record shays check mark check box form which is is just grossly inconsistent with his treatment records when you look at the street records he says at any one time he actually says he had he reports five months ten i think it was june twenty seventh at that point dr say i go specifically said the claimant doesn't describe neurogenic weakness so you have that you have this state agency experts who synthesize all of this the treating doctors evidence versus the state retained reviewing doctors under the tree of these ok's the doesn't have to also consider the length of the treating relationship which in from fifteen twenty seven in the written decision that's not consistent with any other case law from this circuit or with the regulations having friends and we have an intra circuit split i would say think i really think that should be so you cannot read it to say that if enabled it doesn't discuss all six of those factors it's it's a remand of all air and i would just point to one of the factors is other how is a court supposed to say well the l g didn't talk about other and i've been doing this job for over seventeen years and i can honestly say i've never seen an l g decision that talks about every single one of those factors so there's that we have to did talk about the length of the treating relationships here and just because that is a factor doesn't mean it weighs in favor of the coin it here you have two doctors who as you mentioned saw this claimant on multiple occasions and their records outlines from the statute that must be considered would you acknowledge at least that the that the j's opinion has to allow us to determine whether the considered all of the relevant factors  of the relevant factors not every factor is going to be relevant in every single case and i think you're you can understand that from this you know that if you look at the regulation it's supportability which he obviously talked about relationship treatment relationship nature and extent of the treatment relationship look there look at how positive doctor she is treatments were in the talks about that support ability we talked about consistency with the record as a whole the  talks about that specialisation is the only one that he doesn't necessarily touch on in the decision and that's that could go either way you have doc doesn't know that doctor she is a pain management yes and he also i think he says that about claim so a long trading relationship actually cuts against the supportability of those opinions here because of what those treatment records say in terms of the claimants first of all yes so i'm just about out of time if you