it please the court my name is greg wallace in our brief represent janice smith in her claim for disability insurance benefits under the social security yakima smith is a sixty one year old woman who suffers from a number of medical condition she has coronary artery disease he's had three stents placed in her heart blood vessel she suffers from insulin dependent bad bts congestive heart failure and renal  insufficiency having paid into the system for more than thirty years she seeks a fair hearing on her claim for disability l j did not give her that fair hearing for two reasons number one the jade did not have good reasons for rejecting the opinion of dr or amoeba who pined that ms smith would be unable to sit for prolonged periods at work without elevating her legs fessor your time sure we know the facts the thomas case came out in february five are you familiar with it from this court thomas versus barry oh if you're not just say now and go  but not on the treating doctor i don't think that that case hurts us because here you have an ala j that discounts the opinion of a treating doctor and says look the the swelling  there's nothing in the objective findings that substantiates that it's improved with medication and cites this january fourteenth report saying no swelling well on twelve out of sixteen occasions that dr me the treated miss smith she noted swelling now they range from minimal swelling or mile swelling to plus one or plus two types welling to hitting a d mo which is swelling that if you if you press on it with your your thumb it leaves a mark it doesn't it doesn't it doesn't bounce back and so seventy five percent of those occasions in which dr aram eva treated miss smith she noted that she had a persistent problem with swelling in her lower extremities it doesn't have to be true on july thirty one of twenty thirteen and don't record and so and when she gave her opinion in december of two thousand and thirteen which was the same month that miss miss insured status expired she said look she can't sit when you put her in a work situation she's not going to be able to sit for prolonged periods without elevating her legs and that's consistent with miss miss own testimony that he she has to elevator legs several times a day for fifteen to twenty minutes of time because of the swelling in her lower extremities and so given the fact that she has medical conditions that can produce this kind of a demon just congestive heart failure renal insufficiency given dr error many of those blood pressure medication and blood pressure medications can do that yes and it comes no but in this particular case the doctor observed it seventy five percent of the occasions that she treated her and that's you know consistent again with with her testimony  regarding the severity that she has to elevate her extremities several times a day but given the fact that she suffers from medical conditions not just medications but medical conditions that can can cause this kind of  familiar with miss smith's condition here and given the fact given her testimony l j should have included some restriction in his r f c assessment that said at least something to the effect of you know she needs to elevator legs every hour or two hours or whatever instead l j s r a c assessment upon which he determined that she could go back and perform her past century work has no mention whatsoever of any of the effects of the swelling in her lower extremities this leads to the aspect of this feeling unusual for me with the v testified by interacted to her answer two months after the hearing though what are have ceded the ve can consider what his opinion about past relevant work with or without leg propping and those that those things matter that is an unusual procedure i think the ve was sick the day of the here and step four but it has happened before and some times what will happen is hearing and based on that hypothetical the ve gives his opinion that she can perform her past work as a telephone call operator as as a sales operator and indicates that in those in iraq  a billet to cross examine the ve in those cases but but the important point here is that the r a c the hypothetical incorporated the ale gas r a c which had no restrictions on her ability to sue based on the need to elevate her legs periodical during the day and that's what her treating doctor said she needed to do that's what she said she needed to do and and her treating doctor's opinion is confirm by the multiple occasions in which you're treating soccer observed her at the time she treated her in her office with swelling and in her lower extremities sensors asked relevant work was sedentary when what bothers me is is  the because the vocational expert was not asked to consider that limitation now it might be that the vocational expert would have said well no there's there is not any this would not interfere with with these types of jobs at all something in our brief we said she has a twenty year work history actually if you look at her earnings record she has a thirty plus year work history and there is no mention of that work history in the credibility assessment  requires that the l j consider a a claimant's work record in the non decision this case says that a claimant with a good work record is entitle to substantial credibility in this case there is no mention now requires the ale jury to consider that and if there's no mention of that in the opinion how do you know how does anybody know whether the able to even consider it and in this case i mean i can understand where if your work history maybe that's not important enough to mention but a thirty year plus work history here is important to mention and for those reasons we ask you that this court reversed and let her continue  statements and third the opinion was inconsistent with smith's with mr smith reported daily activities when dr ameba gave her opinion she also felt of right any additional details discussed any objective findings which could explain why she sedentary work and exceptions as they often do and here the exceptions were ok should really climb stairs never ladders occasionally balance to crouch never crawl avoid concentrated hazard answered exposure no slight there was two occasions he mr was mentioned one plus one on august thirteenth and there was another in august two thousand and twelve years plus two but those are only two occasions will was more than mild october and november of two thousand and eleven for follow up treatment of two thousand thirteen i'm sorry for follow treatment the treatment records from these visits reflect no findings of a team and then immediately following the opinion in january of two thousand and fourteen she again noted no reported findings of a demon over all the record shows a doctor or me of a treated miss myth over a two year period and her treatment was consistently indicate there was no evidence of a demon at lower extremities and on occasions that it was present which i just mentioned it was only described as only mild or slight mis myth also followed up with a cardiologist who she saw on five occasions between august two thousand and twelve and august two thousand and thirteen is there a listing in which the the agency is discussed the deem as a as a disabling condition no there is now specifically on that even though it's not that it wasn't in the a l j list of severe impairments but it's a i think did considered a severe severe impairment he did consider the listings that the claimant combined severe impairments whether or not she would actually meet a missing meta listing he actually didn't find that but however the doctor said she couldn't sit there we didn't find it listed i just wondered if you know that at that at a sub par day or whatever it is that goes on for pages and pages that i look at wh that is there any is there any subpart list is there any listing subpart that would shed some light on the extent to which the agency has found the deem it to be just to be or not to be disabling what i don't have the listings memorize your honor but i know it but to my knowledge there is no specific listing that addresses the severity of a demon whether that's disabling or would actually meet a listing but i'd like to also point that the that doctor i'm odd elves bar the cardiologist he saw her five times over when your period he also observed that there was no d m except on one occasion in november of two thousand and twelve and even then he described it as a mile and miss myth even told dr ellis barr on in august of two thousand thirteen that she was complying with taking her medication which was a directive and that she was last point the l j actually considered daily activities which miss myth actually admitted to she could perform without having to raise elevator legs she described being able to drive go to the movies and she joined going out  swelling yet he or she provided no limitations and walking or standing which stands to reason that if she has a severe demon there would also be those limitations included in the opinion therefore y long work history in a decision the implication is that somehow miss myth extensive work record makes her a less limitations more believable ever l j may discounts objective subjective complaints when they are inconsistency in the record as a whole and his a it really is a is a symptom of what's going on in those three different areas and the question i've got is that as you look at sub party and you start looking out you can look at they the listed things six point zero two and six point eleven and start messing around with that but i mean at the end of the day what does it take i mean you know you've got three quarters of the time where this woman suffering from some of the emma plus two edema when it's done of you know that's fairly significant stuff you know that's not  guess well that at the end of the day the l j is only required to include limitations that are supported by the evidence now the commissioner can see that obviously there are some can there a are from the district court's decision thank you for your time have please the court unfortunately miss smith is being ignored because there's no restrictions in the jury's r a c assessment there were more were there were several occasions in which her a demon was more than just mild a s late as august of two thousand and thirteen doctor error me the indicates more lower extremity a demon for the last week and weight gain and one plus bilateral lower extremity of the month that's on page five three two i gave you the wrong page earlier five what he wants five forty two now why is it gone by september september flat statement no a demon present and the i c c is being given yes it's amazing she was taking lasix throughout this whole period of time our argument is not as we say in our priest our argument is not that she had constant a demon twenty four hours a day the swelling comes and goes and what dr era me of the said is that it's triggered by prolonged sitting and she needs to elevate her legs thank you thank you council been very well briefed on argued and these are always important issues w that complete the argument session yes ergo the court is in recess till nine o'clock tomorrow morning