disability really astounding work astri for just a high school graduate he started working for at the same drinking company he worked for basically disability right out of high school for sixteen years working his way up as just a laborer and attending nine with this is freaking injury with increasing wages all the way through emphasized the conservatives in routine treatment i think mr so since he's pain does the record tell us why surgery was not used to try to address have the nerve they didn't think you getting to that nervous possible and he was told and so he basically found in are all just in two thousand and ten dr drew and he stuck with them from two thousand and ten all the way through the end of the end of the records he still sees him today and he you know he tried all kinds of alternative options with  work i think he did a pretty good job trying to get the treatment that was available one of the things that concerns me about the argument you're making here is that i don't see  and he made a kind of he did make a medical store statement that it wasn't a statement it included specific limitations but when he started a lot of these doctors are very nervous with malpractise insurance and such to give these type of  medical opinions that are really needed in these cases when you're talking about you know function by function residual capacity assessments so he you know he made that earlier statement and he he found the same kind of decision it's a very generalized decision and that's why i did the footnotes start on page thirty six of the original brief and i cover every single appointment from that from march of two thousand and ten with dr drew and i tell you what looks good on paper when you throw it in a paragraph in a decision but when he can't back it up that the medical records with all the admissions that were made mr scar it's john scott or can you i want you to explain a point you made in your reply brief that i just wasn't sure that i grasped i haven't i haven't seen the argument before and it's the point that where you're distinguishing you're trying to make a distinction between an initial r f c assessment and a final c assessment and it's important what is the point you're trying to make i don't know that i got it ok we're talking about the social security ruling that requires the function by function assessment and  i think it's of if you'll let me kind of go through that and i'll answer your question these these so security rulings are actually binding on even the court of appeals that alex that i what was talked about here i was responding to the fact that the initial ruling holes at the national r c c assessment that's the one that's blocked out usually at the very beginning of the decision that talks about lifting carrying s expert you don't have to go back and say all seven string demands you can tell you can at that point use the word light because the if it's not restricted because a vocational expert is supposed to know what a light r c is or a you can stand how much you can lift how much you can carry those are all have to be outlined function by function so that you can actually see what the restrictions are if you can use the word lightly when talking to a vocational expert in the judge's questionings the medical opinions for the period at issue in that case which again november th two thousand and twelve were unanimous and they were clear they said that he was on the name to saying that he reported improvement from injection and the l c a carefully weighed abnormal clinical signs again sign indicating adequate functioning and tell the doctors could have gone beyond where they were going where they were with with pain treatment do we do you does the agency see people working regularly on this kind say that even his matches what the medications were it's really important to focus in on here that the medication didn't change it stayed the same should they have been escalated and if so to what level i mean i give you a specific level what i think is reasonable for the to conclude is that if serious consideration about changing the treatment or upping the drugs or or you know some kind of other corps or some sense of urgency from the doctors and that's just not here in this carpal tunnel so to think he doesn't produce any evidence let alone persuasive evidence that purple tunnel syndrome was responsible for any limitation that was not already there  specifically address in a subjective sense i'm finding which again you can be minimally articulated just have to get across the reason it's supportable reasons why the a l j determined what the  to devote much attention to any specific listing analysis and that's exactly what happened here the l j provided a reasonable analysis given the lack of evidence that has provided that he met any of us jeff also talked about the function by function seven strength the man's argument that counsel raised and really based on substantial evidence his carpal tunnel syndrome was proven by m g testing it was proven that he had it and act my brief shows that he has a lot of limitations that were discussed yet but the brief shows where they are his attic seven has to discuss it all up for them or brief his headaches alone look like they're probably disabling fact i'm sure they are two to three times a week he was getting headaches some through physical therapy right before the decision which almost destroyed him and i didn't make anything better he was so much worse thank you for your attention thank you mr scar the case will be t and the court will be in