you your honor may please the court this is a social security case and in a social security case every medical opinion must be evaluated by the a l j and that evaluation must build she said that mr went home and was limited to no more than occasional reaching in all directions with his left upper extremity in the a o j's opinion she acknowledged that but she didn't evaluate it both parties have pointed to a couple of spots in the ai j's decision but in neither one of those places the d l g actually evaluate that opinion one of them and this pinion great weight to the extent that it is consistent with the residual functional capacity for the reasons set forth of both so she's basically saying i agree with this i agree with doctor patrick mckinnon's opinions to the extent that i agree with them which is not helpful and then she says for the reasons stated above so she was not specific about those  reasons and as of the the district court noted the a o j did not reiterate in that part of the order what those reasons work so again there was no analysis there was no evaluation there was no logical connection there and were left on able to trace the path of her reasoning the other place in the decision was on the next page page eighteen of the appendix page twenty five of the record where the arab state wrote the only manipulates have limitations that are warranted related to his left shoulder as it relates to overhead reaching which he make of other statements in the l j's opinion that do support what she thought mister winkle ment's capacity was so for example she she notes that he testifies that he doesn't have trouble reaching in front with his left arm and i suppose it's always possible to write a better opinion and have and repeat things under all the different headings but this is sort of the middle of appendix thirteen which looks like it's page eight of fifteen of the pin they're all different numbering things but but he has no difficulty using his hands or fingers and can reach with both arms so it's not like the a l j never touched on this what are we to make of of all that well it's what's sad and what is that the fact that he can reach out in front of him one time really tells you nothing about how frequently or rarely he can reach out in front over the course of a day so that's that's one thing and then the other thing is what it is we have a hint from his testimony this is a giant paragraph summarizing his testimonies i read it anyway and he doesn't say only every so often he does limit some things he talks about how often he walks in a day and he walks two miles and he sometimes uses push you know there are things he limits but our review is limited of course as you know spiritual evidence and i just don't understand the signifies her awareness that he can reach with both arms over here why we should be so worried later that she doesn't talk about that further well and  i guess another thing is is well st of all in that hearing nobody asked him about how often he could reach that they all j simply said can you reach out in front of you and he said yes another thing is she asked him can you reach overhead with your left upper extremity and he said yes and so then she subsequently limited him because of that to no more than occasional reaching overhead so i don't know that that's necessarily logical but if she's going to say because he can do this i am therefore limiting him to no more than occasional then she should have done that with the reaching out in front as  well and then moving to the other reason which is i guess what i just talked about you know she says i am assigning him overhead reaching with the left upper extremity i am doing that because he says he can reach overhead so therefore i'm limiting him to reaching overhead no more than occasionally so you know if that's true of reaching overhead  then logically it should be true with reaching out in front i don't doubt that he can reach in all directions but the issue is doctor patrick mackinnon said he can reach in all directions no more than occasionally and where is the reasoning that says from from the a l j that says ok i'm going to reach the limit him to reach in all directions and i'm going to do it not at all i'm i'm going to do it occasionally i'm going to do it frequently it's simply not in their there is material because of the jobs used to deny the claim and the other jobs mentioned by the v vocational expert at the hearing all require frequent reaching you know all directions the commissioner contends that the m j did not murder but does not contest that if the l j did or the the morning in it please the court david murtha's son behalf of the commissioner this court is that to decide a very very narrow issue on appeal and that's whether the ale jade analysis of of one aspect of want to pinion in the record is supported and sufficiently explained mister waxman hasn't challenged any other element of this lengthy administrative record there are numerous other opinions numerous other impairments and  i think the reason that i note that just at the outset is because what mister winkleman has done here in this appeal is essentially shine a spotlight on this one small aspect that one aspect shouldn't characterize it that way one aspect of the of opinion what that does of course is when there's a spotlight shown on the one aspect of the appeal every word is scrutinized and mister winkleman asks for i think more than is reasonably can reasonably be expected what this court is has repeatedly said is that the reviewing court including this one is to give the a l j as decision a commonsensical reading rather than nit picking at it and so what  judge would what you noted is is directly on point the l j in this case does address the issue of reaching and does address the issue of reaching out in front which is the element of doctor patrick mckinnon's opinion that that is  estimony i am not sure whether a description of the testimony is the same thing as a holding that every aspect of his account of what he can do is something t absolutely your honor i think that is one piece but i would point to several other findings or or pieces of the al jay's analysis and they all are relevant to the question of reaching and so what the a l j has at seven o two of the record this is that the doctor mango there's another orthopedist doctor mcnally in july of two thousand and fifteen that that indicates that mister winkleman has as full range of motion that's an appendix  able to lift his shoulder over his head and i kept trying to imagine what that would look like what are we supposed to make of that i'm not certain that i think that probably it's pertinent to what we're trying to figure out that's actually i'm not just being picky about it trying to figure out the person left shoulder pain because he hasn't had the surgery this is all the rotator cuff problem eyes and then he's able to lift his shoulder over his head i don't know what that means are strange thing i would point to the testimony record eighty eight so so he indicates that he's able to reach overhead but the indicates that there is some popping cracking and and so i think the a l j quite reasonably is is indicating that there are some difficulties now of course we've got doctor patrick mackinnon who indicates that there is a issue here but but the a l j made a finding that was consistent with that or patrick mckinnon's opinion here on overhead reaching and so the you know the question that mister winkle meant is is asking this court to to examine more closely is this reaching out over in front and and so i think but but but your honor you know makes the point that that the a l j is discussing this issue i think that's not the only place either i mean this is this is from the transcript in a strike from the  hearing i think it's useful to look at what the a l j did with several other opinions that are in the record so mister winkleman primary care physician is doctor troy or issues opinions these are i think at a record here that there are some some just discomfort when mister i went home and tries to reach overhead i'm going to add limitations with respect to that function so again the a l j is surely focused on this issue and  of the decision but again the reason i highlighted at the beginning that we're taking sort of a spotlight approach here is that the l j had a lengthy extremely lengthy record to review lots of opinions lots of impair getting at was was that the a l j had a responsibility to consider an extremely lengthy record over a one thousand pages of medical evidence and so in the course of discussing lots of impairments there are numerous impairments we're  they do require frequent reaching so if if mister winkleman is unable to reach reach frequently in front of him then these jobs wouldn't appear to be appropriate that of course it is possible that the occasional expert could provide some explanation but but that isn't in this record so again what i want to just leave this court with is is the the the understanding that this think as i've said one time doesn't mean you can do it over and over for social security cording to the ruling eighty three dash ten frequency means being able to do something between one rd of the day and two thirds of the day or you have a gentleman with a full thickness tear in his rotator cuff it's never been repaired because he spent all his money on these other problems that he's had a o j found that a severe limitation or severe impairment provided a limitation but she simply didn't evaluate doctor patrick mckenzie opinion that mister winkleman is limited to no more than ok janelle reaching in all directions with his left arm yes it's one part but it's a very important part as as a judge would disclose to and judge woods question notes and yes she has a tough job but it's an important job and how she does her job effects mister winkleman very much so it's important that she do her important job correctly