mr rodman round t that mr plus under has radiating symptoms down his leg all the witnesses put he has motor loss that means he can't do the the ordinary sensory or reflex things that ordinary folks do  he's had positive both sitting and supine which means laying down straight leg raise tests and he's had back problems with pain and numbness in his like in feet and he's  had at least dr coleman discuss these specific impairments in a way that seems to line up remarkably with the listing and is otherwise a functional comment and there's two main did not make sense and the doctors that should have been given proper consideration and lead consideration were not consulted instead on the credibility and  s sort of this is where they weave together the credibility analysis seems to be outsourced to a doctor palla a medical examiner who testified at hearing and  and when a doctor says these are symptomatic is that is as opposed to mullingar is that the way to interpret them i think that's i think that's right which is where it goes to credibility not exaggerated newsgroup disco serious problems i think that's right and he says he's had problems since birth but they seem to have gotten worse and not only that  my question to you this way it sure looks to me wait the agencies doctors and consulting examiners came awfully close to thinking that mr close injury was disabled yet he was denied before getting to the hearing  stage i think that's right i think that's absolutely right and and i i don't i don't know where to go with exit except to read in that the way they seem to have pulled off that fe the top of my head but i believe i believe there's correct page five of your proof was for it to get yes i believe that's correct and he did he he's the sort who would go out and do crazy probably unwise things and i think that the record bears wrong thing per se although i think that that the briefing very says doubts about that but but the but the problem i have is procedural goes to the armstrong case that we that excited about the fundamental requirement due process being the opportunity  level of concentration with with his impairments that are currently down and i don't think that that and we don't think that that's consistent also i'd like to go to the listing home question point of appellant here has the articulation required and the burden required and doctor coleman's opinion almost verbatim lines up with the sort of thing that would read almost off the page  so the question is why wasn't that he will ised in greater detail beyond simply asking someone who happens to be a lung doctor if at the listings were considered and then also addressing it in detail but if i understand what you're saying correctly was treated with conservatively with nerve root box injections medications that's of pages two sixty one three twenty nine and in september of two thousand and twelve she was described as doing ok it takes three twenty nine now he allegedly became disabled in december of two and dr if i read his testimony correctly says in essence i don't see limitations that are disabling here but further impairment would be related to credibility of pain on his function rather it's a little awkward but i understood him to be saying in essence to get to two supreme two total disability it's going to have to be based on the credibility of his pain complaints and then i look at the jay's opinion and i don't see any engagement with things like evidence of dealey activities i see detailed reviews of medical records but nothing that really counts to me is engaged with the plaintiffs can't even stand up to take a shower and the ale jay is saying he can stand for sin or walk for several hours at a time the agency's own doctors are saying he can't walk more than a few feet at a time so i this is i'll tell you i've never seen a stronger case where benefits were denied we're on i think this gets to the i was saved medical histories the easy part that's the hard part there are conflicting medical opinions and in this case no doubt about that but conflicting about medical opinions involving look at look at where his treating doctors are look at where the state's only examining physician so far they think he's disabled at least that what the what their r f c findings look like and then dr pella who's never seen him says this guy who apparently can't stand up to take a shower can do a areas limitation but it was understood that walking how many feet twenty to thirty feet standing how many minutes five minutes climbing how many stairs or flights of stairs five staters  here also gave a more detailed opinion pages forty fifty to forty fifty eight rules actually asked us to specific work related functional limitations and so let's look at them i don't see how this adds up to of an eight hour day i see three hours sit thirty minutes stand one hour walk right where you want three hours of sitting one hour of walking through the gate there in that that's that's the agency's doctor it is there any evidence in this record of milling ring or exaggeration of the pain no your honor but i don't think that's the only credibility factor is not issue but i'm so where does the word as the  engage on daily activities i think well in his decision he talks about some daily activities but i don't think he spent a lot of time on that  already had a failed back surgery and we really don't want to try that again unless all else has failed that's not it seems to me fareed ajman with doctor predominantly right side he does not have a lot of right leg pains so dr through kind of pointing out some of his doubts right it's a it's and this is the mystery of backs right you get when you get bulging discs in places where you might expect three four and zero four five is the right strategy other treatment option should be ignore explored encouraged to lose weight if nothing works cli's refer him back and i would consider longer disconnectedly i mean this is something that's that's the opinion as to somebody who's in really tough shape there's no question that mr passenger has serious back problems finding reflects that so let me go back where does the l j really engage with the issue of credibility which dr palace seems to have left out the old it didn't have one specific place in his decision where he talked about credibility and isolation of a daily activities  that the differences between his opinion and other medical pinions and perhaps a difference between his opinion with the children of the find is could be affected by that very bit of credibility right so the algaes failure to engage in a detailed credibility analysis  f the claimants on test my about what he can and can't do seems to be a gap a notable gap in the opinion but i would disagree rather just simply because daily activities for example aren't the only factor to be included l j said in his decision at page twenty nine that you'll be discussing these factors throughout the decision which i think is a fair of thing to do given that the under cases like he wants and it's a bit difficult also analytically a bit difficult to isolate the credibility analysis from the discussion of the other determination the sense that so secret it required one but i think is part of his opinion he took into account all of the medical evidence which included claims paid frankly mr presenters and i would submit i see them over time but i