get a medical advisor medical expert in this case but obviously that never happened in the census how could you even have that the types of findings he makes in this decision with him even undergoing out analysis if you undergoes the proper analysis of fibromyalgia and knows it has been diagnosed and notes for treatment and notes the other consistencies i don't see ever gets to a medical advisor then we get into once we get past that l j decide look fibromyalgia is is extremely complicated and it's going to it's going to benefit this decision all process to get some expertise brought to bear upon how fiber examiner or did it happen the other way before they before we get into the pool of medical evidence i want to make sure that we have fibromyalgia expertise brought to bear upon this i and twenty seven c if you go through that process you don't you don't get there and that's it you're doing that it was an error for the l j to bring in the medical examiner i think as a as an outsider quite a question and then we get viewpoint i look at that this is going to be a defensive battle that's going to get and i wonder how to put the case together that for down the road then we get into the problems with great medical expert herself and we have her yeah i'm speculating again case law says clearly you can't have them nailed kenyon based on speculation and here that's coming from their expert who's testified for over thirty years that she has never had somebody somebody can do side of her she's taken a posh upfront it doesn't eliminate sedentary work at all thirty years of testifying and that's completely contrary to the case law you know star share which was the initial case that this court ever reports in like two thousand and eleven and then again in two thousand and fourteen and in those reports said that the fibromyalgia would prevent the claimant from performing sedentary work and the ale jay's issue with that is that it's not aligning with what's in the medical records you know at approximately the same time doctor dr daters own medical records can you comment on that that seems to be the reason the daters was discounted i know why you like daters you like daters because of those two those two report as well but the eight but the l j seemed to look at whether his overall finding aligned with what was in the medical activity all those type of things that's were so and answer questions so that's a different argument to that's an argument that the l j just doesn't get fibromyalgia right but then how can he get it going how can he be concerned with that's the whole point of those pages i thought so look at the bottom of page sixteen for example right that for example paragraph and check occurred she's in mild pain she's not she's not evidence in disabling pain course but so someone can have normal periods of functioning and not have that issue but again he says he again isn't the very last sentence of that paragraph going over to the next page criteria that have nothing to do with fibromyalgia and that's the problem with his analysis it is it's just not considered the right impairment and i think my analogy i made to want type of harp impairment versus another is accurate  this right nd it is a hell of a ministry of hearing that lasted over three hours three hours were filled with vigorous cross examination to both the medical expert and vocational expert if you look at the time so i compare with the average  that would be in my experience of reading these transcripts well above the average in fact two thirds through transcript gail jane notes that they've exceeded the maximum time allowed later yet in the hearing he really in addition to this deal jay offered to go on you know additional avenues for further action if he so chose to take it you know for instance the o j asked what the record was complete never exercise that right at any time now to speak to your earlier about timing i can't tell you exactly what day jail looked at you know certain evidence of this of that but i can tell you that quick to you know within a month to have decided to do the to obtain a medical experts opinion you know contrary to may was about was was putting forth that you know again without any evidence on the record that the o j had looked through the records and made decisions and done part of the analysis before hand there is not really anything to support that and so we're guarding the opening brief he directs the court to four lines of questioning that each independently relate to a justification that the l g a may in their discretion bring a medical expert so the  certainly within his rights to bring a medical expert and was certainly prudent to do so in a single environment could you address specifically the argument that this medical expert apparently has later in the questioning representative ask further questions about whether if i were my al jolson could possibly do so and again she represented that you could that is it depended on a number of impairments so the her st answer to that direct question specifically says i have found people in this circumstance that would be unable unable to work at that level so i think the answer doesn't bear out that argument terminal impairment it was severe step one is satisfied then you go on to step two and what steps who does it says we have we figured out step one that they have are my all just now all we need to do is figure out the symptoms that are likely to come a oftentimes pain we need to figure out what those symptoms will cause in terms of functional limitations and so in that assessment the the policy the subjective statements and we're doing there is you know for example if if you say you have disabling pain you do look toward some sort of objective evidence that might see how the pain itself actually limits a person for example somebody who says you know they can't they can't barely walk or move because of pain it would be expected that they have an impaired gait there's something of that nature they say my back is is so  ten painful it would be expected to see a limited range of motion due to that pain so you look to see how the pain manifest itself in limitations and that's the evidence that the l g is discussing and that's the evidence that they found  know inconsistent with dr dieter's opinion so while the opinion the additional evans is not what is considered at step one this is a two step analysis and it was  that's it that's just it she's an outlier she's not reliable thank you ok thanks to both counsel the case will be taken under advisement