anderson commissioner of social security my name is terry barber and i represent amber krauss she's the ballot in this case and in two thousand and fourteen she filed an application for disability insurance benefits and s s where d the d magistrate agreed with judge lawyers which in turn brought us to this court the evidence that was before judge lawyers was consisted of the testimony of the applicants d amber testified about the respiratory issues the she had another challenge as she testified about the course of medications that she had been taking were a number of questions put to the location a rehabilitation counselor the expert that was there by the name of holly neal d and as the  sacks of her situation were proposed to the expert the end result was given all the conditions that she suffered from or the requirements of  those that they were there wasn't available work nonetheless and this really gets to the core issue the administration who was subsequently magistrate judge  eat he did yes that's that's correct and it was it was in the ordinary course of their treatment and the and the documentation that that was done it was not it's a mere conclusion opinions or votes fish an explanation or evidence in the record is seen to sustain that conclusion can be given little weight or even disregarded by the l j show substantial and continued improvement in memory concentration sleep mood and physical health if it is read and that's that's true but we believe that the records of doctor duffy also demonstrate the course i don't think that that tracked from the fact that even given the fact that she was stabilized by the betty gage tunes again doctor doesn't get she was not in a position to to to be working a fairly good control of asthma and again improvements on shortness of breath wheezing and all the stuff that these symptoms i don't mean to denigrate so please please tell me how that doesn't apply for the i think one of the things that we need to think about in this case is the simply because something is under control with the course of treatment with medications doesn't necessarily put somebody out of the woods in terms of their ability to function  one of the things that amber testified about was d how frequently she needed to turn to the nebulizer treatments and the medications in order to get through particular episode work and why she can't work i mean you know so all we're left with is his description of symptoms and his descriptions that that she's doing better make progress andy and his description that in his opinion as matter of fact  faded from being able to work yes that but but no basis is given for that will be and he hasn't he doesn't say how his medical conditions or her medical conditions are impacting her ability to work there's no doubt there's nexus there because i think the nexus it is that the prescriptions are current it is are good for regimen for daily regimen and that's given straight in the record and you do have to connect the dots we are dealing here with know why they just simply ignored it you know he doesn't make a fine the l j doesn't make credibility determinations saying i find that incredible doesn't make it credibility determination that says i think that that failure to connect the dots and all that happens stuff and i can see where you're coming from all the way up to the point where what about this hypothetical that the gale j obviously thought was supported by the facts in the record and then he got an answer he didn't like and doesn't project of allegations however when he compared her allegations to the record evidence he was not able to accept the vocational expert respect to the limitations that were posed in that hypothetical and  hypothetical that ultimately he determined did not reflect or accurately reflect the limitations that i can finally write on that but what's the closest i've got to here in front of me thirteen pages and tell me the closest he maybe being st arrived albuterol treatment for up to every four hours there was no indication evidence that she actually require treatment just that often for example in two thousand  where she said and you will know that she said her attacks were getting worse yet she was only using her treatment twice a day with them getting worse which argues against any assertion that this hypothetical even the one that failed a post along with her subjective allegations were actually supported by the record and there was also other evidence showing that doctor doctor kimber in july two thousand and fourteen missed cro was only taking a single puff of advair twice a day and one puff of the rebbe daily and otherwise you know she just used her medications on and asked me to move bases and  as judges pointed out she had a conservative treatment and normal findings and diagnostic tests over the course of her treatment which also argues against accepting the st hypothetical or i'm sorry the nd hypothetical that's a deftly as judge had been pinpointed out doctor duff to statements consist of check box insurance forms and doctor kimber he also had an opinion where he did essentially listed her symptoms and medications and then said she can't work on a regular basis but as judge eric's employed it out this far is whether or not a plaintiff can work that's a legal conclusion and it's not do you any any any significant deference when in a consider such a statement but to the extent that the sources were purporting to offer an opinion they did not explain the reasons for their opinion that she couldn't work and their own records argue against their statements that she couldn't work as already stated she had normal examinations over the course of her treatment for instance in april th scene she had spirometry testing that was normal and she also had an examination in september th team where she was able to where she showed that she had essentially normal lung function and overall her course of treatment shows that she improved with conservative treatments with her only having follow up appointments on a six month schedule and in addition to that the able to consider her act and her activities of daily living which included doing light chore she played games on facebook watched of a variety of television shows throughout the day she went to church she spent time with her friends and in addition to doing other things and you will also know that miss cross is alleged or onset date of january th seemed corresponds to the date she was let go from her job not if it isn't tied to any complications from any alleged disabling conditions and so out of this evidence goes against her claim and record show why he was let go she was let go because her hours were cut back they didn't need her for the number of hours that she was let go and that's on and thirty eight of the record and with regard to doctor jeffrey statements and again there was not significant findings to show that she had a mental condition that warranted his conclusion that she could not work over the course she had normal examinations over the course and so in cases such as this they all say rightfully him siddur to opinions and to state agency experts the argument that i didn't get to it in the st part of the argument is exactly why the judge your brought up with respect to the matter of the administrative law judge and then subsequently the bad history judge is not addressing in fact the batter hypothetical that had been posed to the expert the experts testimony with respect to that i think that counsel has referred to question to the vocational expert in it it was not dealt with certainly not adequately and by my reading of the opinion it was not dealt with it all so for the reasons we discussed we're asking that the decisions be reversed in the most crouse be allowed your benefits ok thank you both for your arguments case number nineteen dash three th is submitted for decision by this court