case number twenty dash five thousand three hundred and ninety three carolyn tipton versus commissioner of social security argument not to exceed fifteen minutes per side mr jones you may proceed for the appellant thank you one having to do with the opinions from the the treating doctor and one having situ with the with her testimony but before i get to that i just want to briefly talk about the standard of review here because there's no just that  this court is reviewing the agency decision program or it's supported by substantial evidence or not but i also want to point out that the other issue is whether there's also reversals are heard when there's an error of law excuse me and that is where most of the issues arise in this case so that this court is actually that in the rogers case that when there is an error of law how long missteps in concert band and walk which are critical but also how often mr finn would require breaks from work during the day and how often she would miss work on a regular basis is no contradictory medical opinions on those issues they considered the same evidence for to get to the point dr brackets stated that his opinions were based on a number of abnormalities including  pain management who also noted similar findings and even at points more severe findings including deconditioning to a point where she was having atrophy in her muscles  without having any on reasonable breaks absences from work again this is on a regular and sustained basis ilja in this case discounted both the opinions from the treating doctor and the opinions that based on based on a reading of the record when there is no evidence to the contrary so the defendant does say some cases that have helped that the l g a is free to determine r c without a specific medical opinion supporting his opinions those findings are with the treatment records both from him and from other sources and we did fail to conceded that the no but really it's not argued any error she's only argued that evidence substantial evidence doesn't support the decision when actually in this case it does and that is the significant that is the the standard of a real that we need to evidence supports that conclusion and in this case it does i would just wish rogers for ms rogers your honor honestly i am not familiar with the run the facts of roger's i don't believe i don't and l j articulated sufficient reasons for discounting the opinion or not giving it controlling weight and that is really the standard that's required if the l g is not going to give a treating physician controlling weight they have to give good reasons and the day here did just that finding that other objective medical evidence in the record didn't support the limitations now counsel argues that they'll  suggest there was it wasn't looking at lab reports and saying well this lab report doesn't show rheumatoid arthritis that's not what they all did here they'll jay look at that evidence is that yes it does dr bracket assess diagnose truman toward rheumatoid arthritis and proper mileage i believe as many of the impairments and they also found that those were severe impairment but they only looked at the opinion of functional limitation and found that the objective evidence didn't support the limitation not that it didn't support the doctor's diagnosis and that's where the difference i think here between what councils are arguing is that it's the a l j didn't look at  evidence like an m r i scan and interpret it differently than the doctor did that's not what happened rather the l g m looked at the record of the whole including other other opinions including the state agency opinion and plainness statement significant to note that the plaintiff herself testified that she spent most of her time sitting that she could lift up to ten pounds both of those some are consistent with sedentary work and they noted that in the decision considered her statements and found that that is consistent with  used consider consider her own statements and considering the opinion evidence dr brackets and that she could lift five percent down the state agency anything in that town that she could do light work when the l a after considering all the evidence even all that evidence that came in after the state agencies there you found that overall the evidence supported limitations not a dr brackets but more severe than say agency so they'll decide on a middle ground there in between and between that the opinions considering her own testimony and other evidence like her activities of daily living caring but then continued on to discount every other opinion described by the treating doctor so there's no dispute on how much the flipping can lift and carry the crucial issue is can she sits there and walk long enough in a regular workday