time to happen the opponent rebecca and then in this case the administrative law judge reach several conclusions and made several findings for which she provided no explanation and for which she did not build the requisite logical bridge between the evidence and his conclusions for example at page twenty six and twenty seven of the administrative records in the old days decision he notes the two thousand and fourteen m r i report of the claimants lumbar consistent with the claim that impairments are not consistent with her alleged disabling symptoms but they are just provides no explanation for that finding for instance why such severe why is that not consistent with the alleged limitations that the claimant said she could only sit in certain types of chairs like a recliner or why is it not consistent with her need to lie down during the day but it not cause severe pain they all day reaches a conclusion based on the raw medical data without tethering that to any any opinion or any assessment of the m r i in the record dale jr in that same paragraph there at the top page twenty seven he also says that the december two thousand and thirteen observations of treating physician blah are again consistent with the claimants impairments but not consistent with her allegedly disabling sometimes but they all j doesn't say what the of problems with the simplest movement she needed help standing up after sitting she needed help sitting up after lying down to her cervical spine motion was limited to the stiffness and pain and the pressure and any of the spinal areas caused her pain jetting with light touch on the left forearm and high posts the show or decrease in sation in the left leg down to the foot with severe pain and with pressure in the hips de provided no explanation why those observations were inconsistent with ms akins alleged limitations and without such an explanation it would appear that those observations are actually consistent with her alleged limitations again those very significant limitations that this doctor observed in the l j provided no explanation no logical bridge for his finding on this basis in addition t l j improperly discredited the claimants testimony based on her daily activities the l j includes daily activities such as the ability to perform basic housework with frequent breaks that she could prepare simple meals she could shop in stores but only if she wrote an electric car and she needed assistance while shopping she helped her two cases that they cannot reasonably rely on the claimants ability to perform such basic daily activities expression when they need help performing those activities when those activities are punctuated with rest because in a full time competitive job the person can't take breaks whenever they want to they can't sit when they want to but they can't move around or lie down when when they want to certainly the fact that the claim could lie on an air mattress or some device on a lake was not inconsistent with her testimony the fact that she helped her children the testimony actually was that she would get up make sure they got to school in the morning and then she would lie back down but she also said that her children help her they do most of the cooking in the house and they do most of the cleaning she just tells them how to proceed on those tasks so the l j improperly discredited the claimant by relying on her daily activities in addition as noted the l j recognize that those two thousand and fourteen m r i reports showed a worsening of ms akins condition in fact the state agency doctors who reviewed the file were unaware of any specific lumbar spine conditions the m r i in two thousand and fourteen being the first objective evidence of a lumbar spine problem and a short a very significant lumbar spine problem but the l j gave great weight to the state agency doctors constantly used her hands for fingering and handling but again he provided no explanation for that conclusion why did he find that ms aiken could frequently use their hands as opposed to occasionally use their hands or rarely use their hands given the objective evidence to l j limited ms akins ability to stoop and crouch to occasionally but why did he limit her ability to stooping crowds but not her ability to said again you failed to provide any explanation and social security ruling ninety six special a p requires that an l j explain the basis for the findings in the residual functional capacity assessment be able to can't just make the assessment there has to be a basis for that and this court in the a medical expert come to the hearing or sent these m r i reports in the additional medical evidence to a physician for review to get physicians input as to the meaning of these m r i reports expected given the than such testing like a cat scan is meant to rule out causes of headaches it's not meant to show that the person doesn't have headaches and in this case we have dr joseph pain management physician who specifically said that her headaches  caused by her cervical spine problem possibly due to the congenital fusion and plaintiff requests that this court reversed the decision of the administrative logic thank you opposing counsel contends that the ail j was required by the evidence that followed after those opinions to go and seek an additional penny but another key fact of the case is that ms aiken was represented by counsel before the agency and yet despite this evidence despite discussing the evidence with yale j at the hearing neither presented an opinion of her own even though she had contemporaneous medical care nor even asked the a and now she comes to court asking for relief even though she didn't do what she could despite her burden at steps one through four of the record of the administrative disability adjudication process to present evidence in support of the finding of disability that is i think the key factor is a key factor case the court should consider opposing counsel quotes childress for the proposition that the state agency doctors opinion doctor opinion comes in at that we considerations stage and then there's a gap between that and the able to hearing and then sometimes a bit of a gap between that and the decision usually it's about a year this was a standard period of time for the gap between the statins he doctor's opinion and the elders decision but again importantly he can didn't offer an opinion and didn't even ask for one and now she asked the court to find it was unreasonable for the alien not to go  the findings of the twenty fourteen m r i and unlike in goings there wasn't a new diagnosis in warnings the impression included an impression of the charring malformation which the court expressed concern that the able j sort of completely overlooked and you know looking it up could cause does not always cause but could cause the sorts of limitations that the claimant in that case was urging including headaches and provided potentially an independent basis for argument that sixteenth repeat of a relatively recent social security ruling and ninety six a p require a heightened articulation and i think the court should be careful here because implicitly what counsel is asking the court to do is turn the standard review on the current standard of the review which is deferential on its head right to escalate the duty of articulation to such a standard that it would it would completely ninety six a p require explanation the court has always read that word and that duty harmoniously with a substantial evidence standard to require trust that the able to build a logical bridge from the evidence to a gave a reason basis for assigning reduced weight not fully discrediting but assigning reduced weight to her limitation to to her subjective complaints then it should find as well that be able to set enough right to to explain why if those other limitations that were not directly address are explicitly addressed for discredited drilling down to the individual aspects of the subject of the analysis of the subjective complaints be able jay's analysis was reasonable this court has acknowledged in coal arkansas or shape the paint cases are difficult right because many people millions of people work every day with chronic pain but a subset cannot and so the ail jay has the unenviable task of taking medical evidence that maybe can go either way and discerning whether this particular individual is an individual  of total disabling pain constant pain which she she was still throughout the record capable of full motor strength and normal emulation now the court might look at that and say well ok she cheated on lation that doesn't mean she doesn't have pain but with the s s r says it is if over the course of a long period of time you have peen that you allege is so complex so total and so limiting that you can't move around very much you would expect a loss over time of strength or of need to have some muscle he said there was no of the fact that her doctors repeatedly recommended for example fast injections and she read it rejected them in the record for a couple of reasons one she said that and the l g decided that  she wanted to wait until her children right at school and then she also expressed fear of the interactions with the l j said was if you you believed that if your pain was as great as you said it was then you would see the street you would overcome that's that's sort of implicit the discomfort attendant to that the recovery time attendant to that is all much greater than what would be involved in an outpatient facet injections and so it would be appropriate for the court to distinguish that  enough least burden of persuasion in those cases there's no requirement in the regulations that a claimant provide a medical opinion some doctors charge for reports there's no evidence in this record that i saw as to why no medical opinion was mid it but there's nothing in the regulations that allows the commissioner to hold that against a claim as for the elder relying on the state agency doctor opinion the key isn't the gap in time between the state agency opinion and the l j decision the key is what is the new evidence that comes into the record after the state agency doctor reviewed the file and in this case we have this m particularly of the lumbar and the rest expire and showing very severe limitations or very severe degeneration that the state agency doctors didn't review and the l j is not qualified as a lay person t not in fact i've never ever seen that but no it was not it was not done schedule and finally as to the duty of articulation of the ruling sect sixteen that's three piece specifically said that we will explain which of the individual symptoms we found consistent or inconsistent with the record and they all day did not do that in this case thank you thank you counsel thanks to both counts in the case of be taken under advisement