her her providers were recognizing that she was reporting in response to these she was receiving really significant relief eighty percent ninety percent and lasting four weeks six weeks eight weeks at a time i'm summarizing to be sure but you you know we don't and there is really nothing to say that she was any sort of the linger or are doing anything there was no examinations where she was out of character i mean her examination finds were consistent throughout she  periodically so that one's one injection would stop being effective he would be scheduled for another injection and a significant improvement for a period of time again the other point i want to make there is that my friend indicated that the robinson's suggestion that surgery might prove necessary if other treatment doesn't help jean in mid to late two thousand and nine and after that time the claimant may be through her insurer workers compensation that rather than the new beginning that there was a worsening of symptoms and i thought to robinson try to avoid surgery but then realized it was necessary dr robinson actually thought surgery might be appropriate earlier on the time period but ones other more conservative treatments as a more conservative than surgery proved significantly affective surgery wasn't necessary so the administrative law judges characterization of this record is on that point is is fair and accurate and provided a basis for rejecting not only dr robbins whose opinion but also the claim and subjective allegations of pain and other limitations work so i would just know that there's actually two examining sources here who conflict with them disagree with dr robinson and those are not acceptable medical sources you gave other opinions there's also significant conflict with the treatment records here the examination findings that as the l g noted consistently displayed that the claimant had normal functioning other than some tenderness which is itself something of a subjective report of pain when one being option is not it's not an objective finding like better husband who's on disability for multiple sclerosis performs the heavy work and the l j a historic is testimony that her husband does heavy work is not credible  and and the claimant also testified that they divided responsibilities but that in terms of doing some of the heavier meaning her husband took care of that and when the l g a inquired further he said so he's he's on disability for multiple sclerosis but you're saying he does the heavy work and she said yes that's right i can maybe i should take a look at it that way where that is a record of all that off the court it's on page  says and he does the heavy work and she says she says yes and then she says he doesn't jacksons every day he's on medication they work together are you sure here is the claimant husband is is at that time getting disability benefit from social security  the husband and the wife who is alleging disability but who is still able to work part time and do various other activities has generally normal physical examination findings and is getting excellent relief from the injections and all incredible messy l j can say well this must be a lot so the person made a person may be able to do that kind of work in that situation that's a possible inference and i think that would be a reasonable interpretation of the record it's our position that you know under the substantial evidence or we look at whether the else is reading of it was rational and i would submit that his reading of of the record was a rational one wasn't the only permissible one is your honor has noted but it was at least broad range of symptoms and even that even day to day a very broad range of symptoms and we're not talking about particularly heavy work here it's a chinaman meant and how important is that to the overall credibility determination and i would say it's not terribly important activity and her chores at home which we talked about a little bit her ability to the path for moving and other physical activities like that a ll she noted in consistency with minimal objective findings which i think i spoke about a little bit earlier in terms of examination generally showed and earnest but otherwise normal findings you found her testimony inconsistent with medical opinions such as those from doctors without skin dr r he found her testimony also inconsistent with various treatment notes where she reported only one or two out of and pain which was inconsistent with her claims of debilitating you know nine or ten out of ten pain i think you're out of time but on that last point wasn't that one our kids report of a description of pain and one out of ten that that that response is covered in your precincts i'm going to stop you there and just ask my colleagues that they have any additional questions you know ok thank you counsel for your argument there you have a couple of minutes for rebuttal i'll leave it i'll leave it to the brief i would just say 's attempting to work you know eight hours a week doing minimal minimal things and it basically details a doctor robinson's opinion and he got her credibility based on that minimal work throughout and just some broad citations to objective