are to review it to know we are supposed to do the same deference that the district court has for the l g s opinion right yes in terms of i mean our our review is the same as the district courts but nonetheless the district court has some responsibility to the l g a opinion correct there is some responsibility but this question responsibility is to make sure that the administrative law judge set forth sufficient decision if that decisions not all were talking about then is substantial evidence that's all i'm trying to get to so you can move forward i just don't want you to get out of where we are i understand what my standard is  standard the district court had and then i'm back to substantial evidence let me let me go to the clear and convincing evidence scuse me clear and convincing reasons to find your client's testimony less than fully credible let's look at that particular issue it seemed to me like the ale j provided a detailed description of your client's symptom testimony what your client suggested then the ail jay provided detailed inconsistent sees in the testimony and with other evidence in the record why is that not enough of the first around i do want to address your substantial evidence issue because there are two prongs for reversing a diminished trade like judge's decision one is substantial evidence and the other is legal or i understand now to answer your question directly you have to look at what those reported activities are just because an administrative law judge says that the claimants are not credible because she's able to take care of three children we have to look at how did she take care of those three children one of those children was a twelve year old help take care of the younger children ny client was supposed to take kids to school in the morning two days a week she had friends do it she had help from other people that would come over and assist her  administrative orchard says she was able to cook but if you look at the reports or say like cooking such like michael way food things to that effect so you can't just say because she lived a normal life that she's not credible or not disable you have to look at the specifics of it miss a large would frequently rash during the day she was consistently at the doctor's office she was complaining a lot of power her pain and when and if you take a look at the case of bart again deceptively states that if you're going to find activities of daily living to impugn credibility then what you have to look at is see if she spends a substantial part of her day doing those activities and what is the nature of those activities and when we look into it and we delve into it miss a lot as there is no indication she spends a substantial part of her day doing activities in the issue in the in this  that what the l g a said were the detailed and consistencies are not true well i can't say in terms of the fact that it's inconsistent that's not true the fact that she did certain activities that's correct it's just the manner in which she does these activities you know the laws pained monye consistent with the medical records one hundred percent consistent with the medical evidence  if we take a look at her pain testimony she's repeatedly seeing her rheumatologist complaining about very severe pain they continuously increased her percocet until the point where she was at maximum dosage they went to a patch and they can increase the dosage of her patch now i know the commissioner in their brief was questioning the degree and would talk about improvement and i offered a chart in my reply brief that this is what they say but when you look at the records i mean and you see what she's actually reporting what the doctors are actually treating there are two very different things this record continuously says she's in great deal of pain she's on maximum medications she's doing everything she can to try to decrease a pain she would die if she lost weight and yet her pain continued now granted she's got a number of impairment and so when you see something like she reports some improvement in a carpal tunnel symptoms following surgery they're characterizing that evidence says she's reporting improvement but she's not reporting improvement in a  that's the pain that's disabling her on a regular and consistent basis of seems to me like your argument is and this is the first time i've really encountered this argument i guess i don't know how one can say that the l g s reasons for this discrediting flaws are not clear or maybe even convincing but what i'm trying to figure out is are they supported by the substantial evidence which it seems to me would and that's why i talked about it seems to me what you're really saying is that the record as a whole is not consistent with what the ale j it's not consistent with his characterization of the evidence that is correct so there for if i review the record as a whole that i have substantial ev have no substantial evidence same what the l g a has suggested that would be correct now if we go back to the doctors it seems to me that the opinions of dr benjamin and dr fairfax are really opinions of a treating physician are they not they are both treating physicians dr fairfax is a board certified rheumatologist who treated the claimant since two thousand and six or possibly earlier and dr benjamin is an internal medicine and he's treated the claimant since two thousand and eight he is the primary care physician so at that point i have to give them maximum deference correct that is correct and according to the l j the l j basically said that the cost to non treating non examining consulting physicians disagreed she's going to give substantial way to those two opinions but i do believe they are both doctors now the district court a l j discuss the due to cater examiner opinions other than saying they've reviewed their record which isn't actually accurate no understand sometimes we consider a testimony but if you ask me if they conflict i'm going to tell you to look at what they said i didn't look at with these ok so these two physicians who never saw my client didn't review all the records their conclusion was missile i says no severe impairment and what that means is she can within carry up to one hundred pounds she can stand for eight hours she can sit for eight hours she can w question was much more limited of sorry i question was because facts and benjamin's opinions were contra indicated by the medical testimony is that change what the l j is required to do for us to sustain the l g s disposition no it does not and so the reason being is that these are now in treating non examining consulting physician or so they are now i understand that and i've been through this with all been through this again and again we understand the difference so don't it doesn't assist is all for your argument but if the l j give specific legitimate reasons then don't we have to point and i i don't want to interrupt you that i appreciate a little sitting if there's a counter indication between physicians and the treating physicians and if the l g then gives specific legitimate reasons then don't we go with the so if the a l j gives specific in the gentleman reasons we still have to make sure that the a l j met the standard of proof and the point i'm trying to get is when we have non treating physicians like we do here then it's not considered substantial evidence that's what we said bayless it is was what was considered to be conflicting evidence but i believe in a less there was a lot more substantial justification and other evidence that tended support to support the non treating non the physician opinions and here we don't have even the the district court noted and i know we do this de novo but the district court said no on treating on examining we're still going to apply controlling standard to the opinion and treating physicians the district court cited i forget the name of the case to napa ten something like that but  are just as good sites on that issue were in the district court where did the district court go well one of the things the district court said was that the lack of abnormal finding such as decreased range of motion neurological deficits was evidence that we ported symptoms was in a severe is alleged and also detracted from treating physician opinion in a fibromyalgia case and also with the turtle valve symptoms every circuit court has found that reasoning to be incorrect that is not substantial evidence to detract from any of these of this evidence a disability i would point the court to what the normal range of motion is not evidence that she's not credible or not this able it's not evidence that the treating physician opinion is not entitled to greater weight it's not a reason to detract the administrative law judge said there were no neurological deficits these are not findings of fibromyalgia one i think it's an out of circuit case seven circuit says you know you can't say an individual's prostate cancer is in severe because the claimants now complaining of  headaches that the citation and the conclusion must form a logical bridge and in here we can say that an individual suffering from fibromyalgia is not disabled because they don't have decreased range of motion because there are no neurological deficits mean it's just not only every circuit court has made a finding but the commissioner issued policy ruling twelve days to pee and it says exactly that fibromyalgia is not supposed to cause abnormal neurological find these it's not supposed to cause abnormal lecture ace let me make sure i have this pretty clear because the government's going to get up next it seems to me that i have to treating physicians testimony here that these two treating physicians testified that the a l j did not even discuss the disability adjudicators examiner's reports and yet without even discussing them he gave the true treating physicians testimony minimal weight that the district court thereafter in an effort if you will to save the j's opinion or whatever came up with the adjudicator examiners testimony is that right now what happened yesterday so what we're really doing if we were to affirm is we're saying that the district judge could come up with something that the ailed ga did not even rely on or at least didn't reference in an effort to support the ale jay's opinion is that what we're doing we can't do that because that would be considered post the question now seems to me then as as to that as to the opinions here unless i can find something that's contradictory evidence i have to accept them and the l j didn't point it out all the ale jay was said was i'm giving it minimal weight because it's inconsistent the first time i even come up with any inconsistent opinion is  when the district court comes up with it is that true we checking that decision i do believe is the a l j decision and that does look like correct and it's pure the post hoc rationale which i don't even think would meet that right i just want to make sure because i think the government think is tell me about that honor katherine bostic representing the government here all those the laws allege that she was completely unable to work due to disabling pain the record also showed that she remained able to work running her own business during part of the relevant period that she maintained a relatively normal lifestyle and that her physical demonstration or physical examinations demonstrated that she retained generally normal functioning including a normal gait and mus strength in light of this record but ala jake could reasonably conclude that she retained the residual functional capacity to form a reduced range of sudden terry work so that it seems to me you skipped over a lot of stuff when you go there i have to treating physicians one i could even call a specialist they look at her they say water conditions are normal as a male j as to treating physicians and there's no testimony to the god hurry that he cannot get rid of their opinion i think that's else a good point and i also want to i want to emphasize that the l j did not completely reject these opinions he evaluate designedly frankly the things he rejected them for are minimal in comparison to what's in the record i mean my biggest problem with this case for the government is i've got to treating physicians the l g a receives their testimony never talks about any inconsistent opinion from any other professional at all says it's inconsistent with the record and therefore diminishes their opinion and then the doesn't usually a good legal those will hear both of the reviewing physicians simply opined that her physical impairments were non severe they didn't assess her with any functional limitations so i think they really weren't of much assistance for the algae am actually evaluating her functional limitations what can we do what can she actually do that he says there are minimal weight because they're inconsistent with the record i've never seen that ever some ability to do some things he found that she could sit more than three hours but less than four hours she could stand and walk for less than two hours and she could lift and carry more than fifteen pounds but less than twenty pounds the a l j did consider this crouching and climbing and avoiding concentrated exposure and also limited flaws to sedentary work which requires lifting and carrying no more than ten pounds so they all g s are a few is actually slightly more restrictive than dr fairfax's opinion in this regard but to the extent the the opinion suggested greater limitations this is where the l j differed from dr fairfax's opinion and did provide specific and legitimate reasons for finding that dr fairfax as the pinion wasn't completely consistent with the record as a little l j says for instance the evidence shows that she was less restricted interactivity said dr benjamin's says what's the explanation of that in his record to suggest that well i mean he doesn't say so i gotta go find it well they don't either does price she would give me some background so i had no worries looking dr been benjamin opined that she was extremely limited by irritable bowel he said she would have symptoms three times per day ninety times for a month with an average duration of three hours per episode but where's the support for that opinion for that the severity of those symptoms in the record and that's what the l g was concerned about here so was never reported that she was experiencing symptoms to that severity there are a few cited the reported to her treating physicians or any medical professional there's a few notations in the record that you know she was experiencing i b s she had a colon after colonoscopy that was generally normal one on one point he noted that she had abdominal tenderness but she simply never told there's no evidence that she ever told dr benjamin well i'm completely incapacitated by i b s i'm having symptoms three times per day with an average duration of three hours per episode i think it was reasonable for the l g the conclude that if someone is experiencing symptoms like this which are very severe and very incapacitating that she would be reporting them to her treating professional and again even if we wouldn't weigh i mean i don't think the l j knew or you know i don't think i don't i don't want to speculate as to why the a l j was a thought about it a legit a simple concluded this isn't supported by the record this is inconsistent with her actual treatment no that's what they only has to look at when i read the l g a opinion i couldn't find the good reasons for that they she is less restricted interactivity than dr benjamin says i can find the evidence in the record that stress does not increase the symptoms i can't find the evidence in the record that the symptoms dr benjamin suggests were less severe i can find in the record where the i j points out what specific evidence in the record supports the determination that isn't been is inconsistent i mean i'm trying to figure this out based on what he says and then i have to go to the record to come up with something well i mean the l j has a pretty long discussion of all i read what the l j says but when we're talking about a opinion of a treating physician and clear and consistent opinions to tell me why they're not going to give appropriate weight to those opinions it seems a little worrisome to me that's why i wanted you to discuss they l j was looking at you know there is a lack of evidence in the record not the there's a lack of evidence in the record to support this opinion where does she have a report that stress increases her symptoms there's no notation in the record that she ever reports that she actually states in her function  port that she could handle stress well where does she report that her i b s symptoms are as severe as she says she never reported that they all jailbait found that her activities were inconsistent with this limitation that she would be incapacitated for three hours per with the severity that he recorded and opined and provided in his opinion and if if if i disagree with you as to the weight should have been given to the opinions of a court to find that the claimants testimony is credible or and or not credible then of course the r f c would be faulty correct now here the l j didn't doubt that she had pain and aristeas actually my questions if i did if i disagree as the appropriate weight with the opinions of dr g benjamin a doctor for facts and i disagree with the ailed as to whether she's credible or not the r f c is faulty correct if you accept dr benjamin's opinion then it would be inconsistent with r f c ok in that clear the court clarify that credit is true only applies in very narrow circumstances inverell the court also discussed that we have to look at whether the record creates serious doubt as to whether the claimant is disabled  here the objective medical evidence showed that the laws retain generally normal functioning she had a normal gait normal range of motion in all or extremities over a period of years her physical examinations were generally normal her carpal tunnel terms were almost completely resolved following surgery on her right arm she does rely on carpal tunnel and in other one patients related to her hand so that you know was almost completely resolved following surgery she was able to work at different points throughout throughout the period she did maintain a relatively normal lifestyle that didn't did show that she reported improvement in her pain with medication and there are two seed agency physician opinions even though they gel l j didn't mention them that state that her physical impairments were non severe that would be enough to create serious doubt as to whether or not she is actually disabled you see if i understand correctly would which you're saying is that  the treating physician doesn't have any similar symptoms justifying the opinion that he made are you suggesting that this was a mistake are you suggesting that perhaps this person is trying to hide things in a record this doctor apparently the non treating doctors are taking the position that there's something pretty pretty incorrect about what they were treating physicians were doing how do we handle the i'm not i guess i'm not sure of your question how what do you want me to get i don't want to speculate as to why you know i know i'm going following my colleagues question of whether we if we completely disagree with the government on the station whether we should send it back or not it seems to me that the upshot of the record as i see it is that the naga treating doctors are making pretty strong accusations and that it seems to me is something that needs to be looked into for my view but i don't know what the non treating doctors said that would lead me to that other than they say there's no evidence at all that the person has symptoms that led the doctors to their conclusions when they're reviewing physicians look at the record and they said there's no objective medical evidence that was a port that she had any functional limitations so on remand this would be something that you know they could again look at the record look at the record as a whole of updated records and re evaluate should get a consul tatum's examination on remand to actually determine what are her functional limitations here what's consistent with the record so the reason and wouldn't be that the district court three men would be to back to the back to the agency you have anything further you any further questions i'm happy to answer them rice thank you for your argument i'm not sure i took no you've got thirty one seconds thank you i'm going to spend these thirty one seconds answering the court's last question why we should why we should we man this for a calculation the benefit if you're going to look at the weight in title to different physician opinions  would note that the treating physician opinion on the facts of this case is entitle to controlling weight and there's nothing here that would indicate a lesser standard and if we give a controlling weight then disability proved it would be futile to go back and have another hearing the other issue that i want to discuss this is look at what those physician job and then look at the judge of the administrative law judge found a less then sedentary residual funct capacity that administrative law judge is telling us those on treating on examining physicians of no significant impairment no limitations at all is just not supportable by this record her own words are indicating that the judge found less than sedentary which is that the most restrictive you can get social security policy ruling s s s are ninety six dish ninety says it's so significant to be a less sedentary to relatively where that's how significant her impairments are in the i'm sorry did you want to ask a question that i just said i think that we should not what you're saying is we should not treat this is a case in which it was just an inadequate reason for not crediting the treating physician since there is no contradictory evidence that the medical evidence has to be right i'm asking the court to take notice that it's a controlling weight standard in that under the facts of this case that would not be a placable thank you very much thank you both for your argument appreciated with a case one four one five six nine nine so laws versus call than is submitted