that morning counsel please the court you know i do is that the administrative law judge violated longstanding circuit precedent in failing to build an accurate and logical bridge between evidence and result in particular pertaining to her subjective that her primary problem is the diabetes or is that the lupus it seems to have shifted over the course of this case because the lupus doesn't well the lupus seems to be as under control as it can be but the diabetes may be a different story but i just wondered what your position was for the administrative law judge or juror so our position is that it is the lupus as far as the records concerned after she goes off of the medication is stable and that th symptoms seem right now to be stabilized it's the interaction of the that had a different result in this case and that's where the ministry of law judge in our position fails to link the record to the conclusion that  conservative care and the improvement was caused for the decision and this is and i bet if neuropathies i understand correct your honor it's based on the fact that the record shows that her symptoms had progressed in both shoes certain times throughout the week or get out of bed and it's our position that the administrative law judge while considering a five out of seven and a good day is only consider a chat in the context of the mental health treatment and not in exploration of occasional  this sedentary restriction is definitely in place but doesn't sedentary require the individual to be on their feet up to two hours in an eight hour work shift  your point is that the l j just allowed the medical record to trump entirely her reports of her what she was reporting about her day to day condition because of the neuropathy i mean that's that's i mean that's kind of what i took away from your argument and when you look at page six of ten of the l j's opinion there's a paragraph there's the st full paragraph on the page reports your client's testimony and the difficulty that she's experiencing day to day and then the next paragraph just wholesale discounts it right or let's let's the medical record kind of trump it in other words doesn't mean doesn't meet the the point she's making about neuropathy in the and the difficulty of standing or being on her feet up to two hours a day correct and i think that that's the problem with this boilerplate listing is that her boilerplate rationale is that it it states that the record is not entirely consistent but fails to talk about that and it is especially with respect to the neuropathy and so if the judge doesn't explain why and why all these reports of pain are rejected casting with respect to mental health treatment all on his own and this i'm sorry her own and the same rationale was used for mental health that her mental health hadn't had intruder really cost of course of treatment but it looking at her mental health treatment and her functional report created three years earlier and this rationale is to improvement so you never change hands that the judge here erred in terms of using that same subject a symptom rationale with respect to the mental health treatment and arriving at a residual function to pass the all on her own it lacks medical underpinnings is there anything but is there anything in the medical evidence i know i know there is in your client's testimony but is there anything in the medical evidence that you can point to that would support a conclusion that she may not be able to stand for be on her feet for up to two hours per day and the reason i'm asking them looking at some of that i'm looking at some notes i took about some of the  treatment that she did receive for the neuropathy in i guess it's the two thousand and fifteen or one thousand five hundred and sixteen time period can you point to stand if in the record that would address that you mentioned that the pain that a lot of these things were treated conservatively but i remember you also arguing that that's actually the only approach on the table for some of these conditions yes you're right or i think that's the problem here is did daily activities were considered it came wasn't considered its improvement is incorrect and all that's left is conservative care and if you look at these particular conditions all the workers were recommended at the end with pain management which is what she's complying with so the judge good morning my name is ellison schwartz and i represent the commissioner of social security your honour's the one thing that ms noonan's counsel has not mentioned this morning abel j is not persuaded by what the medical evidence is thinks that she's more limited but why does that comfort us that the a l j landed on the right spot well for a couple reasons st of all the case law point that i pointed out in my brief has consistently held that when an ale jay signs limitations that are not that are greater than any of the doctor's limitations in the record there is no air now plaint ms noonan has the burden to prove that her limitations is the cause her to be disabled but not that is not only true but i just there we do have a line of cases though in which we say that just because pain ultimately is is hard to to verify from from the outside so to speak it doesn't mean that it's not real and i don't know what else these doctors could have said about her pain doctors are constantly saying you know sure pain  on a scale of one to ten how bad your pain somebody else i know it's a seven when you don't know what a seven really mean but she certainly consistently reports to the doctors that she's in pain and i don't see you know in other words i'm not sure i'm persuaded by your statement that this r f c actually fully reflects what the doctors were working with the social security act provides that an individual's statement about their pain is not enough to establish disability and a l j more than that she's seeking medical help for the pain king medication for the pain conditions including a rather severe case of diabetes where she has the life threatening diabetic ketoacidosis incidence people guy from that so it's not a small  thing there's a couple parts to it to answer your question the st one is about the ketoacidosis which the records show that that he had those issues because she was not compliant with her medication the nd thing is what do you draw from that we also have evidence of depression do we refuse to give people social security benefits who are noncompliant regardless of the reason whether it's financial or psychological or just  obstinacy no but in this case we have to look at the record that's before us and in this case the record shows that once minutes noonan's started to get treatment for her depression her diabetes became under better control the a l j cited malta bowl examinations that showed that even though she didn't have even though she had issues with gait she had full strength she had objective findings for example had normal sensation she's got the diabetic neuropathy which means she doesn't have good sensation in her feet and it's reflected in her game well once she got her diabetes under control she had nor if you look at her most recent exam the pain exam in november two thousand and sixteen that ms noonan's counsel referenced normal gait normal muscle tone normal strength sensation and reflexes if you look earlier no joint pain no weakness no no no no no yes her her symptoms fluctuated and she had standing and walking for two hours i just would like to reference that as well the regulations provide standing and walking for most two hours there's no evidence that these new jobs in this new union is going to be standing and walking from  two hours most of these jobs involve sitting and you know it is telling that miss noonan never had an opinion from any of her treaters showing that she was  that her she wasn't able to stand or walk for two hours there's nothing in the record as the ports noted before there was nothing in the record suggesting an inability to stand or walk for two hours and miss unions argument just appears to turn the entire burden of proof and its head at all relevant times ms noonan not the l j has the burden of troops and the a l j weighed the i understand that but when when you when you say you know very broadly that there is no evidence in the burden is on the claimant it's outer etc in that paragraph and i was talking to miss marcus about on page six i mean there is some very simple information in there isn't there from the plaintiff that would at least raise a question about whether she could be on her feet for up to two hours  that the point that i was trying to make earlier is that it's just not addressed in the l j's opinion it's kind of subsumed within the sedentary finding but you know she testified for example that she lays down almost all day for about four out of seven days you know what separates i just you know it so there is some evidence i mean her testimony is evidence of the l j can not find her just able based on the evidence alone well gary and jay didn't explain which parts of her evidence were consistent with the medical evidence which parts of her testimony was exaggerated we just get this useless not entirely consistent and you know you want to say well ok go on and tell us which parts you think you know do you think that she needs help taking showers do you think that she's actually driving claimant said she's unable to stand walk or sit for long periods so if if the if were confident that sedentary is the right limitation to achieve that you did you'd expect there to be some explanation of it the l j does not need this court has held that the l j does not need to explain which statements are and are not credible and the l j did not find any evidence did not find enough evidence in the record trooping that she was unable to stand or walk for two hours the l g a just not only said that we've only said that just to be accurate when there is a thorough explanation from the supporting the ultimate conclusion we haven't just said well you don't have to explain yourself cited before you today there there is support for that and even if reasonable minds could differ dale j's decision is well supported and the court should affirm it all right to provide are considered objective evidence that we see the subjective symptom analysis and in this case we have consistent reports playing into her providers that she is in pain and that she needs to lie down and remove her shoes at times