full time activity based upon these conditions the a l j discredited the opinion of the treating physicians and my right and he did so based on the examining physician doctor caramel oh how came it indicates great i've never taken by the argument that they didn't pay any attention to something that they write up and in great detail in their opinions well he did not write it up in great detail and he i can point  says having considered the entire record both medical and non medical and specifically including the claims testimony and demeanor that's referring to credibility i believe well how many times does he have to say he considered the entire record both medical and medical saying that he considers the entire record i would say is saying everything and nothing i almost consider must consider any medical  opinions which are statements from acceptable medical sources which reflect judgments about the nature and severity of the impairments and resulting limitations your honor we are contending that the exam for a number of reasons first d legitimate reasons presented for rejecting the treating physicians opinions and if you look at his reasons they are far from the gentleman now let me ask is this the decision the second decision by the a l j is rendered on august twentieth two thousand and three his examination on december twentieth two thousand not quite three years earlier at what point does mr on go on twenty four hour oxygen in february two thousand correct wrong he saw him once after release from moscow according to this evidence the but so it is just nonsensical that for the commissioner to defend  that the doctors are treating doctors did not set forth what he can do despite his apparent that's the stated reason they l j provided for both those opinions and they specifically did i don't know how you could be any more specific but more what decision and determination that the claimant has not met his burden of bringing forth evidence that he is disabled and i urge the court find the district court did it that the claimant did not meet that burd in this case the a l j correctly found that the claimant did not produce sufficient evidence supporting his claim that he was disabled now if the treating physicians report valuations were believed symptoms at most they showed that he was limited as the a l j found to performing a range of sedentary work no i don't i'm naturally we are nowhere yet on the same page view of the  he disabled i think you then said well we don't because there's not there's not enough to support their conclusions yes there are my question is if we believe their conclusions is there enough evidence to show or is that evidence that he  disabled if you accept did dr dorning conclusions as to how many hours per day the claimant could stand and more is that the question asked the question  the same yes you're wrong so the question is is there enough here to say that there that he is entitle to object to reject their conclusions that would be the question they're ok they're going on here and why should we question is can he perform the sedentary range that the a l j has found and sedentary means sitting in this case now to that extent muscular skeletal findings are relevant now you  also his ability to sustain work because of the alleged respiratory distress the shortness of breath and so forth and i understand the court's concern in that regard at the time of the evaluation as i understand it he's on twenty four hours wearing something over three hundred pounds and he gets sores on the tops of his sores on the bottoms of his feet and his testimony with decided is not credible but his testimony is basically his activities are he watches t he reads and he colors and coloring books well remember the folk ational expert's testimony that one of the jobs he could perform with oxygen is to sitting at a surveillance monitor which is just like watching television and remember also that at his heaviest he only weighed fifteen exhausted excuse make cancer what does that mean is sitting in a surveillance monitor is that a security job where you're supposed to react if you see that can be performed sitting or standing at will that's the only information we have from the record the the other information we have from the record is that at his heaviest he weighed only thirteen pounds more than he weighed when he was working and when he was working was he on twenty four hours oxygen i think this is probably our capacity seems dramatically to have decreased  well as that the other way around is probably our problem seem chromatically to have increased since the time it was working the pulmonary problems occurred at the time that he ceased working and then with the normal range and his oxygen readings were ninety five or so work so we're talking about a man who weighs somewhere north of three hundred pounds who carries around with them at his work if he does go to work on oxygen tanks so that he can have action and twenty four hours a day council and as far as i can tell he doesn't know anything else except the right longer and say now the for the first time i don't believe them that's that's the evidence on which i'm supposed to your honor you're supposed to look at the evidence and see whether there is substantial on a number of decisions and that's all i can tell you other than that in the record all we have is what we see in the record but i would submit that the appeals counsel has made a remained in t remand for the following issues so this is not an ordinary man i've seen if you remember in cases like this this is not your ordinary man this works in this region we like to reveal your honor i'm sorry i cannot comment to that all i can say is i the record does not tell us any more than that there is also the job of cashier to and ticket seller for which he's qualified to do with the confinement of the oxygen canister and the ability to sit and stand at will to make himself comfortable so this meanders not as disabled as he would have you believe he is able to do activities at home after i can do a little light laundry i can do the cooking and i can do the shopping none of that what he says is i can sit and watch t v i can sit and read and i can i guess that new coloring books  wife to do the shopping not whether there's evidence to support the claimants claim at this juncture the question is whether there is substantial evidence to support the a l j just decision ever to don't look at one to the exclusion of the other do you job that would involve some sort of watch and diligence but there now we have millions of those we have millions of people watching monitored yesterday and to do so effectively you have to is to be able sustain attention and concentration for full time work hours and able to do so in a work setting in a surveillance so being where you might be responsible for the health and safety of others to state that coloring and watching television equates to work would mean that  example of the activities is what we contend is irrational the treating physicians gave a specific assessment of what mr oren can and can't do the fact that they don't understand what disability means and whether they say he's disabled or not yes i understand that but that's a separate issue the judge has already said well part of the reason i'm not accepting them is because they did not give a specific assessment of what he can and can't do so which which is that he did set forth a state agency disability determination service report i would have to check that is normally a non exam ten to fourteen so you've got he says he refers to caramel in the consult of examiner and the state agency disability determination claimants hospitalization which resulted in dr no wins examination he's received little treatment in this condition has remained relatively stable what does that mean you know i find that very disturbing what the commissioner is stating is that there's not more aggressive if he was that disabled he be getting more aggressive treatment there's no evidence that more aggressive treatment exists for the clinics conditions he isn't in that occasion he's on oxygen it's more for full time work hours eight hours a day forty hours a week and it doesn't make logical sense to a layman either but we do ask that you reverse the elegies determination and grant security and you're asking that we or a remand with an order to give him what he wants or for another director correct no marm no more hearings well your honor i don't see any and he's giving very arbitrary i would contend reasons for disregarding them thank you counsel the case just argued as ordered submitted and were adjourned until tomorrow morning at nine o'clock thank you