address too many points that favored allowance of the money they start with the claimants testimony that he needed to elevate his legs for a period that the vocational expert testified would be so long that it would preclude an ornament and the decision doesn't contain an explanation of why that line of evidence  the reasons the administrative law judge for rejecting the opinion of dr boffa were were insufficient she also didn't consider his specialty in the specialties of the other doctors  also testified that he became drowsy from his medications for a period of time that the vocational expert testified would be reclusive of work and still is an opinion the the part of your argument where you focus on mr burgos as drowsiness from the from the medication it's pretty clear to me that he did he absolutely testified as to that you know your client but is there any is there anything in any of these medical records it supports that you know he really he needed to you know sleep at these different intervals during the day that he was drowsy and it affected his daily that way i understand all the rest of your arguments just fine i just wondered about the medication and the drowsiness and whether that's in the medical records i mean what if i had seen it i have cited it so if it's not cited i didn't know that claimants drowsing from his medications doesn't preclude no right i get that and i the only reason i'm asking you about it is because mr bercow sent for quite a while i mean he was working for quite a long time right and then he had a period where i don't remember the exact date but he didn't work beyond a particular date was he taking that medication during all those years he was working productively because he was being treated right in the hernia issues in them the kidney issues went on for quite some time i don't know there's a suggestion in the record that that the medication was prescribed to be off task icing his feet for fifteen to twenty minutes three times a day and dr boffa a pint that mr burroughs had to be has views were inconsistent she says entirely inconsistent with the findings of the primary care provider sarah brownstein who says something about unremarkable m skeletal and neurological findings is that relevant to this i would say not because of the specialties involved dr baf it was very specialized dealing with the abdominal surgery and not not all the and still have a hernia right to put it that way they have nothing to do with one another pretty the yes i mean it seems to it seems to me that the problem with  the reasoning at the top of page thirteen bottom of twelve and thirteen is judge would is where she's focused on is that that the l j allowed some general opinions not only by brownstein but also by dr yawn to kind of overcome or to tromp heard a way more then quite specific opinions that were offered by dr boffa opinions that very much go to your client please the court my name is adam sorkin and i represent the commissioner of course purity in this matter the l g is finding of a residual functional capacity of a reduced range of light work was supported by substantial evidence in this case the l j went above and beyond to state agency reviewing positions of pines as well as the consultation of examiner and accommodated mr burgess with a reduced range of light work and abdominal binder occasional stupina crouching no climbing of places such as checks yes about the leg needing to be elevated and then he writes in how high eight inches how often every two hours how long half hours so so there's clearly some this assessment form which despite some details about limitations isn't really supported by objective evidence for example the charts box is about occasional reaching handling fingering and feeling but it's unclear how that would be related to abdominal wall strange that you don't think that could be related to if you were lower body strength have you ever exercise in terms of the gross or fine manipulation of your hand picking up objects feeling objects if your arm is tired you know i don't know we're not going to play doctor here but the fact is dr baf it fills out this form and contrary to what the ale jay says at the supported by any explanation on the form she says st doctor botha has a limited treating relationship with the claimant and does not provide objective support for his conclusions well to that i would say st of all it's an extensive treating relationship secondly he's an expert he is the doctor doctors don't normally write a big essay about their conclusions they state their conclusions just isn't what you would expect to find in dr baf was treatment notes and the record is something where he would have told mr burgess to elevate his leg something where he would have noted  abnormalities with grasping or reaching or feeling all you see in dr boppers notes are time and again that he tells them to come back every six months and why don't you doing that just for the fun of se required operations and actually cutting out part of it and fixing an obstruction and basically the two connects the kidney to the bladder but he performed medium to heavy work for twenty one year at the snowblower thing no i'm talking about his job as a warehouse worker he testified that he would have to quit that's the thing well he seated some of the surgery his employer left chicago so the warehouse closed down the data warehouse closed down is the day that he alleged that his disability began now you're familiar i'm sure mr sorkin with a line of our cases that say sometimes people are actually disabled and they are putting out hercules in efforts to stay in the workforce of course and we can't assume that because they somehow managed by dint of that type of extra effort to work that they weren't disabled and this record seems  suggest that both the kidney problems and the hernia problems were quite severe and so yes the job shuts down he also argues you know if you really think the onset date is wrong  largest go for some others findings inconsistent with a p c p sarah brownstein so dr brown's neurological findings have nothing to do with the hernia let's just say that i'm remarkable musculoskeletal she's not looking for the same thing and she says that's not the way that her opinion reads it's like she minimized the hernia and kidney thing i mean she began since she focuses on you know mental cognitive capacity and she's looking at this tendonitis problem physician who he does not tell he has in much pain he has multiple examinations with her where he doesn't complain about his pain where she does so much pain think of this snowblower  incident maybe sitting in a chair or getting you know after he lifts up his legs you know he can manage but whenever he tries to exert and that turned out very badly it was an unfortunate decision differences of expertise with the differences of opinion that we see in this record is a general surgeon and while he did a perform hernia surgery in the past he did not perform any consistently took a wait and see approach he told mr burgess to take ibuprofen for his pain that was the level of pain that he thought mr burgess was it not that he was prescribing anything and his checks about what's happening i mean we're using these euphemistic medical words you know he's insides are squishing through this hole in his abdominal cavity and there area listings of event aeration i believe there isn't a listing in the commissioner's listings that says if you have a hernia if you have a diagnosis of a hernia you are disabled that is not what the regulations say that is not what the listing says but now we have so much martin tha never climb stairs well we know that mr burgess has sixteen stairs up to his bedroom and he continues to sleep in his upstairs then maybe he just not on the living room we know that that how long does it take him to go up the stair we know that doctor's office said that he so he's telling mr burgos what he can and can't do based on his medical opinion of having performed these procedures before but he's checking this box form for the purposes of this litigation  you a hard hand here ok and i think the reason for that is what what you want to characterize as a check the box form is signed by a licensed medical doctor who performed multiple surgeries and that that individual said that mr burgos leads to elevate his legs every two hours for a half hour at a time but he doesn't like when you make him lie he's a licensed physician but then you combine that with the statement on the check the box form as you put it he's he's off task more than ten percent but that's the point is that the l j doesn't take it on its face value because the regulations say that it must be supported that it must be consistent with the record and on the whole it is not it is not consistent with the record as a whole it is not well supported by explanation it is beyond what the l j you know that l j gives away more weight to other opinions of record look in the mismatch the chase says instead of recommending extreme limitations as dr buffet does the claim is other treating providers indicate benign physical examination findings by saying that i do think a general there's eight hundred pages of medical records here there's a two page form which says one thing and there are eight hundred pages which seem to suggest something else but this is a person who can walk for exercise reviewing physicians and opinion that were way but was more consistent with the evidence as a whole and found a reduced range of light were all right thank you very much and you have about a minute on if you'd like to take it so see off they're walking three miles a day not three miles i don't think he was walking three miles a day and he also says in his function reports that after ten or twenty minutes of walking he had to rest for a while also walking three miles takes about an hour for me prop for him it might have taken a little bit longer given that he's