thank you and good morning we have three argued cases spent we also have some cases that are submitted on the briefs at this time and those are united states versus her to  cherrix opinion and he was a treating physician yes but i don't understand why that isn't harmless error because dr chair of checks statement was patient not to exceed the u s department of labor sedentary guidelines and the air of jay's past work determination lists the department of labor exertional level for all three positions as sedentary so here found that the treating physicians statement is completely consistent record judge it's in the record and as you said it said not to exceed u s department of labor guidelines for sedentary right and he listed impairments the industrial impairments that's not all the impairments that the judge the administrative law judge found to be severe as well i so don't understand why i'm not mentioning it makes any difference because what he did was consistent with what the treating physicians treatment in addition to other impairments including chronic pain syndrome evaluation of dr cherish x opinion is important here and i don't think it's harmless because if we were to limit mr mega see to sedentary work based simply you're saying is no he didn't know everything so from what he knew sure this sudden terry was fine but then putting him into the max doesn't seem to advance the argument it seems to me  that predated the onset date of disability by two years or more and reviewed one consultation of examination report on the other hand we have the opinions of treating physician dr paige a treating pain management physician who pined in two thousand and eleven to limitations inconsistent with work one of the things the commissioner noted in briefing was that they characterize dr page's opinion as sedentary delight but in that in two thousand and thirteen an administrative hearing the text of that opinion was provided to the commissioners vocational expert in the commissioner's vocational expert a firm that no work would be available with those limitations to call it said terry delight i think is a bit of a misnomer and there's also the opinion of  these doctors who have a much closer relationship with mr magazine a relationship that is noted in the commissioner's regulations to be important to be generally entitled to greater weight and now the algaes weighing in this case on these facts simply isn't supported by substantial evidence council me go back to judge grabbers question i know you want to send well ideally you want to award benefits and be done with the case right sure what say we were to send this case back which is also jack treated the industrial injury found mr megacity very limited based on simply that injury i think that when we look at the balance of medical opinion in this case that's going to inform the judge's decision if he said terri based on simply the orthopedic industrial impairment he was certainly be additionally limited by other impairments with that which the judge found to be severe i get your argument and i apologize for not raising it before but i would like to see the last minute for a bottle of sure you can have a  good morning your honour's may please the court daniel talbert for andrew saul the commissioner of social security substantial evidence supports the administrative law judges november two thousand and fifteen decision finding the claimant was not disabled because he was able to perform sedentary past relevant work in this case included a large number of different medical source opinions assessing different levels of functional capacity for the claimant and in a case like that it's the algaes sole responsibility to resolve the conflicts and to make specific findings about different opinions and determine the claimants residual functional capacity or r f c in this case substantial evidence supports the elegies findings and  make it into the j's opinion kind of walk me through how that happened so i i can't answer the question of why the l j didn't didn't mention it i can't get into the algaes hadn't an answer that question but it was before it was before the l j correct it was in the l j was focused on one line of injury i guess what i would say dr shared check is talking about a different line of injury can you address that where his point is and his point is not harmless because it's not the same issue in a sense it's actually a different health issue can talking to a large extent about the same things they were talking about the same claim and they are talking about largely the same condition and to the extent that for example we're talking about the claimants maybe carpal tunnel syndrome that affects his manipulation the use of his hands the  consider that and said well he's limited to frequent use of his hands instead of constant use of the hands that dr chair attack might not of accounted for that it might have just said that the exertional strength related limitation to sedentary work again this we have you know multiple medical sources pinions here we have different treating sources we have different examining sources we have different non examining sources and the majority of the opinions on this record support that the claimant could do at least of the sedentary the claimant than other doctors did but i just want to jump push back on that a little bit and note that about a month after dr peachey examined the claimant dr levison also examined the claimant so dr levison had the same level of relationship with  claimant as dr peachey and he was the one that said there's significant exaggeration there's some in consistencies there this is a normal examination other than the the exaggerations claim is making you know dr ahmed the two thousand and nine examining source also examine the claimants and again when we talk about treating sources like dr paige dr charles shock we talked about before treated the claimant from two thousand and nine through two thousand and eleven i believe so more much more contact with the claim of the doctor page in her decision there were also some treating sources in two thousand and fifteen dr little who was a surgeon and dr amrani who declined to certify disability for the claimant so when we have sort of all of these different opinions throughout the record it's the a relevant work as an appointment schedule or travel sales i think his manager travel sales representative is amply supported by substantial evidence so if the court doesn't have any further questions  honors my colleague mentioned doctors little amrani declining to endorse disability respectfully that's very different from saying that he is not in fact is able it's you know refusing to give an opinion is simply not an opinion one way or the other there are many rational reasons why doctor might not want to get involved in so security disability litigation as of as of vs doctors are two that i think it be unfair to read something into nothing as my colleague would urge you to do when we look at dr magazine had absolutely no limitations the judge did not give that way and found limitations those opinions are in proverbial left field and what we're left with is an opinion from a from two non treated not examining doctors who reviewed nothing relevant versus the treating and examining physicians who did thank you your honors thank you counsel the case just are you know is submitted and we appreciate the helpful arguments from both of you