our final case for this morning is stevens against the acting commissioner of social security nancy berry hill excuse me that that's exactly right so when initially did the alleged onset date was january five of two thousand and seven and then it was a amended for procedural reasons to march thirty one two thousand and ten however a close reading of that hearing testimony suggest that the claimant didn't fully have his head around the implications of that or the implications of the timing that he was testifying to so that plays into the obesity argument as it's documented well in the briefing in terms of the the l j same to him  in his last work attempt which was in two thousand and seven he was falling asleep on the job and so that's that's a a r two seven zero four and that ended up doing it in for  him and so he testified a lot of times i'll end up falling asleep throughout the throughout the day so several times do they are approximately that and you know if he has and are ready of problems we all can see this from that canyon from your briefs even commissioners briefs but once you get to step four the question is can he do his past work and under the r f c the a l j came up with some of his past work say the security officer a taxi dispatcher not taxi driver where he might have to carry people suitcases or whatever but taxi  crux of the mail to opinions analysis is that the medical pinion cited incorporated in corporate abuse to be automatically when they talk about other things and that's not necessarily true  delineated in the briefing and also in terms of the dispatcher i believe he he hasn't done that job for some time and the the relevant period is and so this comes this comes to the timing the relevant period is from march two thousand and ten to march two thousand and thirteen so that the l g is strongest evidence in terms of obesity isn't from doctors it's from the climate himself thinking that he was fine or that he was lighter during that timeframe and so that that plays into the credibility analysis in a couple different ways well first off if the elderly didn't go to the were saying at the time and so i'm looking at the the end of the opinion she checks with the vocational expert and how whether somebody with his capacity could perform the former work and i don't see any reason to think that the vocational expert is unaware of what a taxi dispatcher job and a security officer job is in general location she says it's consistent with the d there's a sit stand option she's put a few more things in there she gives him the benefit of the doubt because of the obesity she restricts given a credibility boost mean i guess i'm i guess i'm not convinced that she's giving him the benefit of the doubt or any kind of credibility boost in terms of the obesity about pain she says the obesity doesn't hansa credibility of the statements of pain because sometimes spell it out to your sense of action but she says with regard to obesity she talks about exacerbating symptoms and that that is an acknowledgment of his obesity on the face of it it would seem to be  think that that what we're looking at here today is at some level whether brown sort of takes the punch out of martinez in terms of the obligation to make more than a passing acknowledgement of obesity when you're calling to obesity severe and the ale jay in this case does call obesity severe and which in my mind triggers at least at least along the lines of brown a good faith attempt to really parse through some of a bunch of specific ways it's actually with all the things this gentleman deals with and dealt with during that relevant time i asked her in terms of how that's going to affect his obesity and so for example he had you know the chronic  playing up and actually change clothes the whole process more for teeth shoulder and hand i think i think risk impairments even combined with obesity presumably  close reading of the the line of questioning suggests that the l j thinks even in the opinion even in the written decision that the claimant was substantially lighter during the relevant period that's just a asking him what he could do in two thousand and seven when he had that last job attempt and he was falling asleep all the time and he thinks oh well i guess maybe i could've done that other job i had if you changed it to sit down which is my understand that's that's that's that's what's going on all the problem is the relevant time period is more two thousand and ten three years after the timeframe that it's fairly apparent to me he's thinking about when he past work as a taxi dispatcher if they hired him again as he said as he put it with certain addition limitations of details are credited and included in the record and she specifically said as has  that she was crediting them because of his obesity because of the fatigue associated with the obesity and the fact that she believed that the obesity made his pain completes more quote opposing counsel asks the court to find he was unreasonable for the l j not to find that he was even more limited but again the if he specifically said that she was taking him at his word and that she was including those limitations in order to account for the limitation to forty five minutes and options limitation to sudden terry rather than light work which is what the state agency doctors the only doctors to apply and about as are seen records of com there's no treating physician opinion the record there's nothing to suggest despite the fact that there are allergists worry about the diabetes and it seems possible it's that these doctors will say oh yeah you know i mean if you're going to ask me about the obesity i can say something about it but she she and first from a lack of mention that they've already incorporated it and i wonder if there's a problem with that i don't think so your honor and the primary reason is this in this case appellant who had medical insurance throughout the record was represented by indeed not the same attorney but the attorney who is now a partner with the attorney who's representing him here in court throughout the record including sort of at the first hearing at the second e mail jared here and now here na plan which at this i think a medical plan for low income individuals had medical care throughout never asked these doctors or at least the evidence of record doesn't show the as these doctors for medical opinion didn't even ask the ael j to go procurable so i think at this stage for the court to sort of impugn the decision or sort of find that it was unreasonable for the children not to go get one i think is sort of unfair however i would also say that the circumstances under which an l j would go and get additional community if she doesn't think that she has enough evidence to decide the case and here she had specific testimony by the claimant that he  limitations would be able to return to the past work as a dispatcher it's true that the the dispatcher work was pretty remote in time in the sense that i believe it was between one thousand nine hundred seventy two thousand and two thousand yeah but the and concluded that he could return to that work opposing counsel asked the court to find that these impairments and companies companies she would presumably would affect agency doctors opinion stated but that he was not more limited than than than she felt that that taking him at his word about what he could do and the fact that he thought he could return to this particular passport with certain concessions and statement is an opinion but if true if you look at it it says if he has had for some months he should not try that seems conditioning as we argue in our brief that's a conditional statement it's not a medical sources and if you look at fo no indication that that impairment persisted after to the extent that it would it had no there was no demonstration that there were limitations based on that in the sense that no doctor opined limitations but he was treated for it in october of tw less than a year after he has his revised onset date and by i believe may of the next year reported that his problems had resolved and again i think in july i think of the next year a report of the problems occasional balancing was more reasonable in the ideas that really matter anyway does it if he if we're talking about taxi dispatcher and security guard what are you balancing i agree your honor although there's an argument in a palace brief that there's an inconsistency between limiting him to only two men two hours of standing and walking and going into occasional balancing which is slightly more than two hours it's about a third of the work day or two and two thirds hours but in our view there isn't an inconsistency because if you look at the  but again beyond that neither of the jobs that he was found to be able to return require balancing of any sort it was just that was not present for those jones and them with respect to the upper i think reasonably interpreted that as a typo because nowhere else in the record was there any indication prejudice of the right thumb the worlds in the record was there with that kind of treatment for the right time or the right hand  thank you honors ok at the outset i'm going to go back to brown because i know that the quick the goal here today is to do the right thing by case law as well as the parties i think overall brown is an outlier in that it is not standard that you don't really need to have you know sort of follow connect the dots in obesity a brown was almost the exception because the judge the ael day there went to such great lengths to d e and example that it's fairly obvious in terms of time and in combination that wasn't even considered is that obesity caused by was caused by insulin and that's when obesity skyrocketed in two thousand and eight in two thousand and eight yet  this gentleman has an implant in his hand and yet there are no handling or fingering restrictions and multiple surgeries on the record yes that you remain all right thank you very much