and low back and hip and i all day disagreed with her description of her limitations and disagreed with the treating physicians who gave opinions the question before the court is whether the old days decision rest on the stakes a fact and omissions of fact and application of the wrong legal standards were pointed out in the briefs a number of facts that the judge was mistaken about the judge believed that she had returned to work in reliance on a  history in one of the treatment notes when she was receiving cancer therapy that referred to her her history and her return to work after her diagnosis the judge mentioned it three times in his decision but didn't mention that the same paragraph verbatim appeared three times in the record months apart making it very unlikely that the for bottom history was the same in fact each of those paragraphs referred to another physician as having been the author of it rather than the person writing that record the judge also made a mistake of fact in that he believe that there is no physician had ever said that she needed hip surgery when in fact the head said she needed hip surgery but she needed to lose white first  judge also omitted a lot of the facts that supported her her allegations the judge said there were times when she had a negative straight leg couldn't afford an m r i when she went to see the orthopedist but they they took one as part of her cancer therapy and all and that showed there were there was a nerve root compression that's something the judge didn't mention when rejecting her pain so it's improper for an ale jay to look at the evidence that that doesn't tend to support the pain and rely only on matt without at least acknowledging that evidence that does support it and trying to resolve those differences in this case we have medical opinions by doctors who actually knew her and treated her no doubt to recover solve her disagreed the only person to disagree read more medical source take minutes starts that your client can lift at most ten pounds and structured to never stoop squawker been better treatment record prepared on the same day and it could be a target is it consistent except when you look at the actual opinion what the doctor actually was answering was not what can she do when she feels like it he was asked what can she do in a work s it's different the amount of weight that you can lift the amount of standing you can do is different if you're work wired to do it at somebody else's schedule as somebody else's bidding so the problem in this case is it seems that the judge is applying the wrong legal standard so security disability is supposed to be based on the way that the individual response is the individual's experience of their disability and yet the judge doesn't talk about her experience he doesn't he says oh well her she had optimal relief from her pain that's an actual statement in the treating of the pain management physicians knows when they're talking about what kind of pain medication changes they should make of that several times but what he doesn't mention is in that same record the doctor asked her how's your pain doing she says well my back is an eight out of ten my hip is ten not the kind of treatment that i would expect or that one would expect i'm not sure who expects it there's nothing in the regulations about the kind of treatment you have to have in order to qualify there's all through the record it says she couldn't afford to get i she couldn't even afford to get her cancer treatment or cancer a well visits to find out of her cancer is return and yet the judge is complaining she didn't have come to treatment that the judge expected well there's no requirement that she have the money in the ability to get it she said she does have insurance she can't afford five thousand dollars co pay when the judge says we're not getting the kind of treatment that  think you should get he's converting what should be a standard based on her actual response to the pain she's experience into an object of one well this court decided way back in have objective evidence of the underlying condition that can produce the pain complained of the judge in this case found she did have that so to to require additional objective evidence to to require  something beyond that to prove her pain is simply improper into rely on non examining record reviewers who looked at only part of the record who did see some of the later records who never s to rely on a record reviewer alone where there is not other evidence to support what the record reviewers found or what they said in this case there's not  it looks like the judge in his interpretation of of the record is he saying what i see in this medical record just isn't enough for me  this court has repeatedly said that they are not physicians they can arrive at their own independent medical conclusion they can look at consistencies an inconsistency in the record but when they do that they really need to look at the consistencies that help the claimant to all in this case judge did mention the fact that both of the treating doctors gave opinions believed her pain they weren't but they both clearly accepted that she had that degree of pain but she had a severe degree of pain so did the pain management doctors so did dr kelly the consulting orthopedist that her treating orthopedist sent hello own key again and i'm arguing on behalf of the commissioner of social security substantial evidence supports the l g s finding that claimants back and hip conditions were not disabling as the testified at her oral hearing in november two thousand and fifteen that she was told a hip replacement would not work due to her age claimant alleges her conditions did not respond to treatment but a review of the record shows that they did for example in and fourteen she reported to her family doctor dr powell that she experienced ten out of ten in her lower back but proceeding from the she received pain treatment through injections and prescriptions for morphine  hydrocodone and ibuprofen and by the time of her hearing in november two thousand and fifteen she reported that her pain was only a five out of ten and let me ask you something i mean i'm not sure i'm not sure whether the errors here mar and re mand they may and they may not but there are some errors here i mean for one thing the the discussion of the four of four point one five to physician you know let alone that he had had a long term relationship with her is there something and that's not the only one of those factors that seems to be lacking the ael j also does not appear to have considered at least from my review of the decision that dr reid is a specialist north of pediatrics and so obviously that would affect the weight given his opinion with respect to orthopedic opinion so those are be you know those would be those factors regulatory factors that are now if you want to address that sure the mail jade did discuss dr opinion with with a discussion of treatment notes i mean i but when i looked at it it looked to me like he thought that there's only discussion of one of dr reid's visits right so like maybe jay was under the mistaken impression for some reason their historic he went to dr reed wants his or some is or something in their record that he thinks suggests otherwise as far as the interpretation of the evidence not that i'm aware of but but the the the treatment with dr reed was fairly recent when he issued his opinion so in terms of the l g s review of the opinion i think he was just taking it chronologically that is true but then there were then there was also there were also later visits as well that's true but i think the l j wade the opinion as you know as part of his analysis i think he took into account that she was seeing doctors for her orthopedic conditions but he didn't use the specific words treating physician in his weight but but he did apply the treating physician standard he did look at it and give good reasons for discounting it multiple discounting was because it was  record that's that's fair i mean i took it that he was wanat as a treating physician when i was reading it i didn't i didn't know that it felt like he was his opinion and what do you say in response to your friends argument that well you know there's a difference between in your own personal life once in a blue moon you need to bend down because you drop something or something like that and having a work position that requires you on a regular procedure regular basis to stoop or whatever i mean do you think there's a difference in that do you want to respond to that argument well i do think that in dr reid's treatment note in which he recommends that claimant not lift more than a maximum of twenty to thirty pounds he doesn't make any recommendations about avoiding work so even if if you were to say he was thinking about different things when he wrote them he certainly didn't restrict claimant from returning to work and he didn't tell her that if you're required to do a job that involves lifting twenty pounds excuse me on a frequent basis that you should not do that so i appreciate that there are different purposes for treatment could lift up to twenty to thirty pounds i think that's a glaring inconsistency between what he said in the opinion at the behest of claimant for disability benefit application and what he was writing in her treatment notes at condition so i think in talking about focusing on on her hip and back condition dale j did discuss the various imaging and treatment for those conditions i think j also took into consideration her mental conditions in discussing all of this particularly in discussing her subjective complaints near the end of his  determination especially the findings that she returned to work that was although the council's correct that it was repeated three times one of those times it was in reference to a mental condition that she was able to return to work so the return to work was was actually used at two different points and i do believe they did consider in combination all of her though the return to work does appear to be and i mean it was it appears three times with different people having written it in the same kind of format it appears said you know these electronic records for some reason it just wind up getting reprinted out again i mean do you have any indication if that's not the case it does that's what it looked like to me while there are treatment notes from this same medical group that predate the august twenty fourth teen note that includes the return to work statement and those previous notes don't have the return to work statement in them additionally she was going to physical therapy and the note says that she was returned to work and was lifting more than she previously had there is a possibility that that was a reference to something that adds to that extent but the real import i think is that it was present in that note those doctors were reading that at the time they were saying that she was doing very well after her cancer treatment and no doctor went in to correct that it felt like it was incorrect i think the ala jay made a reasoned decision to look at that and say some of her physicians at that time were noting or at least willing to allow into her j as a part of why he found her not to be credible there were other reasons why he also found her not to be credible but that was one of the reasons right that's how we get to that part of this discussion yes yes yes and that was as you said that was one of a number of reasons you know even if that was maybe not the best reason that the l j gave it was it was you know not the only and certainly not the strongest reason i think the l g started off in discussing it the the medical evidence that showed that her conditions were not as limiting as she alleged and you know those that medical evidence supported his his discounting of the treating physicians opinions as well so is it your position that even if the a l j was was wrong even if these these notes about returning to work were incorrect and the jane was wrong to rely on them it wouldn't it would have been harmless error would've made a difference in his determination that she was not credible is out your position as i would agree to that i don't think that the l j was demonstrably eroni as in relying on those statements i think that there is ambiguity as to whether they were correct what i even referring to whether the physicians who were writing those treatment notes were aware of that in writing the notes but i would agree that if it was incorrect it wasn't it wouldn't warrant remand in this case i think it was just one of a number of things they'll take relied on and it wasn't something that that the case hinged on particularly if there really been a return to work that would have been a separate issue that dale's a would have focused on in terms of finding substantial game selectively i don't think he he thought that the return to work was of major importance in determining whether her subjective complaints were consistent with the record i think it was just one of a number of things that  he noted in reviewing the record that led to his conclusion that she retained residual functional capacity to perform the reduced range of light work did the nonex physicians review all the relevant medical information up to the point that they were talking about the state agency consultants prior to the l g hearing that they reviewed it up to february twenty fifth in which was when the second stated the consultant reviewed the record i do believe they reviewed most of the most of the evidence that is pointed to by counsel such as the had to review following the stage to be already twenty fifteen opinion but those treatment notes i believe are consistent with the l g s finding a number of them are from the pain specialist who found or about who said in the treatment of things that such as claimant could live independently cook clean the house drive they found full movement five five strengths in muscles that you know her or she was reporting high levels of pain during portions of two thousand and fifteen but by the time she testified at the hearing in november twenty fifth teen she reported only a five out of ten in pain i think one of the key elements of the medical records show that she stopped taking morphine at her request and started reporting higher levels of pain but she was placed back on morphine by her pain doctors and shortly after that she she reduce the number of visits to physicians and i think that go back to that issue because i'm reading the judge's description of why he's rejects dr reasonable doesn't say it's inconsistent with the treatment records he doesn't say that what he says is under sonics chords a little way to the medical sessoms  because the opinion expresses quite conclusory another words i'm not looking at the rest of his records in the fact that he had an m r i and he sent out for consultation exam oh that provided very little explanation of the evidence relied on he said right there look at my medical records in the form he referred to the medical records so it's really not conclusory and he didn't say it was inconsistent with the records he said it was conclusory and it wasn't very well explained he said the doctor own report failed to reveal the type of clinical laboratory abnormalities and yet the judge didn't mention the fact that there was a nerve root impingement on the m r i he didn't mention the fact that she had from her lumbar disc that was causing pain to go down to her foot so so yes the judge did look at some of the things he did point out lots of times in the medical records where certain tests were or negative where they didn't show certain symptoms he just didn't mention the other ones where they were positive findings where they did show the symptoms and our position is he's got to consider both you can't just evaluate the evidence that supports your conclusion you have to evaluate all the evidence that supposed to it to all and the court has to look at the reasons that the judge gave not just the any reason that the government can come up with in their brief but this is what the judge said he said you didn't explain it well enough  the physicians that the judge did think were credible no they didn't see all the evidence they didn't know that there had been a diagnosis a radical lot that they because that was not in the records they reviewed they didn't know that dr reed hadn't had the opinion that he had because he never saw his opinion they didn't know that he had referred her out to pain management they didn't know that another orthopedist that dr reid has sent her to for a second opinion said she needed a hip replacement so they didn't have anywhere close to all the evidence i would suggest that the doctors who treated her knew were best and that the judge is just simply imposing an object of evidence standard in replacing the pain standard with object of requirements thank you thank you mr mark we would be in recess until tomorrow morning