objective objective medical evidence that provides a basis for the pain then that is provide or even more credibility here  what is most troubling is that the the main pain generator was problems with the tibia a large joint which  there were some real problems with that were brought up by imaging studies and i know that i'm parsing words words with the a l j here but they're they're really important words because they described in the degree of damage  looks like the the judicial process is the administrative judicial process was done back were another board the evidence was cherry picked and then  form or mutilated in order to support the conclusion rather than let the conclusion arise from the evidence could i just suggest maybe another way of looking at this i want to tell me whether that's valid and also and this is so much pain that he can't actually sustain regular work or or not and is exaggerating somehow and there are a lot of questions of judgment in there so they all j looking at things like you know his failure to seek out specialist care they mention the kind of pain medications he's taking sees this is something where maybe his subjective complaints don't have enough of a grounding in object of medical evidence now certainly there's objectivity evidence there's this whole reconstruction of the foot that had to happen but important imaging in the whole case and then and then conduct a fair explanation as to why the l j reached th testifying about his pain and the fact that he has to sit in the recliner and elevate that but if the imaging is  looked down from the beauty that that's correct then the word significant mark earley means something and that's that's where we're at your honor thank you very much reserve the rest of my time evidence that is it applied to the relevant regulatory factor how the objective medical evidence mr barrett's treatment history this statement not a call providers regarding effectiveness of medication and physic pick in and other factors did not support the degree to which mr barrett stated his left ankle paying affected him he acknowledged positive finding but she also found that mr barrett had largely unremarkable physical examination and she noted that in his most recent exam with his treating physician dr gindi he showed no tenderness and normal range of motion and his left ankle lee should be i ask you it seems to me at least theoretically possible that you could have a normal range of motion in a particular joint and yet you might still experience pain when you are engaged in that motion so how do those to link up well in in physical exam her parents in the most recent physical example record mr perry did not show a pattern if that is left ankle so the doctors instead you're saying the doctors were not writing down you know he could rotate his ankle but he was when thing or he displayed signs of pain when doing so i believe  his physician assistant mr libby a noted that he had no tenderness and that indicates to me no tenderness to the touch in his left ankle and if he had but there were several exams where mr barrett did not show tenderness and so the normal range of motion in his left ankle just range of motion include weight bearing i mean i can imagine sticking my foot out in the air and wiggling it around that's one thing but i could also imagine being asked to walk for fifteen minutes and that would perhaps be something different well in his co assisted device and he didn't there's no indication that he produced medical documentation showing the need for it and describing the circumstances under which would be when she did not the physical mention every finding in discussing the results of the left ankle x ray and c p s can and he concludes that because he didn't specifically mention a analyze every examine the record and and it specially noted the more recent exams showing no tenderness and normal range of motion in the left ankle  the l g did not unfairly discuss the evidence from the record when she did not specifically mention every finding in the imaging studies we also have dr bird state agency reviewing p evaluation of dr bird opinion which included a review of the imaging that speaks of finally we would argue that mr barrett has waived any argument  raised before the district court but chose not to raise before the court and he did not file applying the same unless there are any questions the commissioner we are arguing that by leaving out what that you had to let that out that says nothing really significant when you leave out the word significant or marked that's a big deal surgeries to try to reconstruct it and you and it involves putting in a card where things are never right and so the final point is that this is a guy who worked at least enough to earn a credit every quarter since he was about seventeen years old guys who work like that don't quit if there's any way they can get back into the workforce and this guy he's going to get back there so you've got that basis that credibility basis is good grounds for repaying thank you thank you your honor all right will thank you thanks also to mr aleesha the court will take this case under advisement and we will be in recess