security mr lloyd was severely injured in two thousand and three when he fell from a letter at work he severely shattered his left heel which required reconstructive surgery and he was a rehabilitation for a number of months for a period of time after that he returned to work for a few years before we could no longer do so one of the issues that we raise in the case is that it's listing one point three  that is the listening that really is regarding reconstructive surgery on the weight bearing joint and clearly the heel it's within the listing definition of one of those weight bearing joints the only other element to listing one point three is the inability to emulate effect now the first three points that i would like to make in regard to this is the abel j completely failed mention this listing whatsoever in the commissioner doesn't dispute that the second point that i would make is the record is absolutely clear that mr lloyd and did in fact every constructive surgery in a way fearing joint in the commission or  not dispute that the next point i would make is that the record is full of evidence that mr lloyd cannot effectively emulate now the commissioner's defense to that is that that we didn't meet the burden of proof and i think there are two aspects of the evidence that relate to this listing which i think are vitally important in the first deals with dr coulter's opinion no doctor's coulters opinion was the sole security administration's consultative examiner so in his examination he made two statements one of the statements is that he that mr lloyd had a grossly normal gait but also contained in that same report was dr calder said that mr lloyd had problems with pro high watermark for the evidence for they all j in this case the other opinions particularly of his treating physician indicate that my client had provided problems every person who examined my client who actually that had incomplete records and they never in fact obviously as none for just record reviewers never saw mr lloyd and i would respectfully suggest that even a regular person can determine whether a person has difficulty emulating when they see that person seeing is in fact believing in these people have never seen him they were only reviewing the records all of what we've been talking about that i've been talking about so far is that both the left heel but my client not only had a problem with his left leg but also with his right your peripheral artery disease which is under listing four point one two now there are three parts to that listing in there is clearly except imaging namely a doppler ultrasound that indicated not only did my client have reconstructive surgery in his left field but he had peripheral artery disease in his right leg he also had intermittent claudication which is the second element which is cramping or pain in the legs that is that occurs because of walking and that requires rest now the third element of that listing i think is somewhat problematic because i don't think that that was fully explored in the record whether he had reduced the style of blood pressure in his leg but there's no question that he had deep vein thrombosis in the right leg which certainly must those are blockages obviously that have an here you know that really kind of relates to the state engine see record reviewer's is that in a subsequent application my client that the initial doctor's initial application found that he was in fact disabled when they had a more complete record to look at than the record reviewers did in the in this current case all my client has in fact subsequently at this time while this case is pending been found to be to say the next issue that i would like to look at which was also raised in the brief was the mail jayson disregard for the social security regulations rulings in case law in evaluating medical opinion evidence neither the commissioner nor the district court disagreed that the  j failed to evaluate that the medical opinion evidence based on the regulations ensured the able jay gave weight to all the non examining sources most who have never seen a majority of the records and clearly had never seen mr lloyd then there's the opinion of dr joe we are who the who is the not examining source who testified at the hearing who the judge gave considerable weight in said that his or his  test was slightly abnormal well the one that he picked out was actually of the six components was actually the one that my client did best in every single one of the components in the  trest was abnormal and the one that he said was slightly of normal was the one that my client did best did that absolutely reveals that dr joel were maybe a physician but he doesn't know as much about spirometry just thing as i do and probably not as much as many inconceivable that somebody who doesn't understand what the test says and it's obvious place testimony is given more weight than a pulmonologist i guess i would summarize this before a reserve the rest of my time is that when you look at the regulations and what is expected in evaluating opinion testimony under the regulations in the case law it's exactly upside down in this case the treating physician is given no way that little if any weight given to the treating physician of long term to a consultant examining examining physicians who have actually met mr lloyd that were employed by the social security administration or ignored altogether the only doctors in this case that are given weight are those that never saw him at all that is clearly a problem with not following the regulations in regard to that listener's questions that would give the rest of my one point zero zero b two which is very specific definition of effective ambulation although it is true the l g did not mention one point zero three she thoroughly discussed listing one point zero two which has the exact same requirement of an inability to emulate effectively mr lloyd points to the fact that doctors said he had problems with prolonged ambulation however the l j pointed out in more than one occasion mr lloyd was able to walk normally medically meet need or medically equal listing in my show that they meet every criteria and every part of that list furthermore the administrative law judge relied on dr jill are the medical experts testimony that shows that mr lloyd's findings were minimally minimally abnormal as explained are preferred as findings as much to seventy percent of predicted values are considered normal one of mr light's predicted values was at sixty nine one point zero zero listings there's a there is a definition that's given but it says this is not an exclusive definition in one of it is that you could walk a block on even run even ground at a normal pace and i would seventy is considered anything suddenly you're bubba's mild but when it gets more than it's below seventy then it's considered moderate so every aspect of my clients pulmonary function first of it's accurately read and understood in fact that's what it said the diagnosis was clearly placed on the pulmonary function test that my client had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and i just ask you to consider consider that and ask that you remain on the case thank you very much thank you counsel the case  taken under advice we will now go back