disability as kohler was employed as an accountant at planned for i'm earning more than fifty thousand dollars per year the bulk of the evidence in this case relates to miss corps attempts ever leaving her neck upper back shoulder and headache pain and to treat those conditions she received in occipital nerve stimulator implant a device used to treat chronic migraine headaches when in patients who have failed to respond to pharmaceutical treatments miss koehler has received multiple treatments for  pain including our katic pain medication such as opana cervical facet injections trigger point injections occipital nerve blocks botox injections physical therapy chiropractic treatments and a radio frequency loosening procedure at four levels of her cervical spine and despite all these treatments this caller continue to report pain levels at seven to ten out of ten in severity significant for t v loss of concentration muscle spasms and reduced range of motion they also found miss call our statements concerning the intensity persistence and limiting effect of her symptoms not credible because there was quote very little objective evidence treatments that miss caller might have undertaken that would be expected of an individual suffering from fibromyalgia in addition to the treatments that she did receive including five types of injections the occipital nerve stimulator treatment with a rheumatologist and pain management physician and five prescription pain medications they also disbelieved this caller's allegations of disabling pain because she complained of the same symptoms and degree of pain during two thousand and six two thousand seven and two thousand and eight a as a compared to the period after her alleged onset date of may first two thousand and eight however they all jay was mistaken in finding that miss colette worked in the year two thousand and six she did not work whatsoever in that year and in two thousand and seven in two thousand and eight she worked for a temporary agency earning less than half of what she did grant born before she ultimately stopped working the commissioner devotes considerable attention to this issue in her extra breaks excessive absences and even the reasons for leaving the job they own j's finding on this point is speculative this court is held in numerous cases such as point henderson that work activity is not a sufficient grounds for just believing the claimants allegations of pain as individuals often work beyond their physical capacity out of financial need they all j also erred in affording little weight to the opinion of miss callers treating physician dr jesse park they'll take discounted dr park's opinion because he quote failed to provide specific functional limitations and offered only a general conclusion of a finding reserve for the commissioner of social security but dr park did provide specific functional imitations he opined that work activities such as bending stooping lifting and reaching perform even on an occasional basis would aggravate miss color's pain to detail the results of the objective measures that he listed in his opinion but dr park stated in his opinion that information regarding miss koehler's treatment for injections her nerve blocks and m r i s were available at the office of eric sheppard on behalf of the app police it's an honor for me to appear before this court there are two main issues in this case and that the first and most important point is whether it be ale j reasonably fou claimant who worked with a longstanding impairment for years until may first two thousand and eight could continue working actor may first two thousand and eight when she produced no evidence that her condition deteriorated at any time around may one two thousand and eight the second issue is whether a doctor's decision to base an opinion of disabling pain and limitations on unremarkable objective evidence discredits that opinion in general the a o j was reef but clear the ale she said that plaintiffs complained of the same symptoms and degree of pain durin as a bookkeeper from two thousand and five to two thousand and seven for six hours a day four days a week earning twenty dollars an hour the l j was permitted to rely on that statement now appellant also says that this is just a case about fibromyalgia but it's not when one color applied for disability benefits she just said complain generally of neck pain head pain and shoulder pain her doctor a squad some of her limitations to problems in the neck the l j was entitle to rely on objective evidence to discredit what could have been and these  impairments that were present in the record moreover it complained it were in the type of pay if plaintiff were in the type of pain that she claimed of yes there would be physical signs and those signs didn't show up in the exams as they should of of someone complaining of disabling pain now how she works during two thousand and six two thousand and seven and two thousand and eight kohler could have brought up this argument in the district court he declined she declined she could have brought up this argument in the opening brief to this court the a l p made it clear that this was part of the reason that it was brief but it was clear appellant to climb out appellant waited until the reply brief to this court to bring up this argument that is unfair to us as litigants as we didn't have a chance to submit a written brief in reply in any event this this argument is without merit we have case law in this circuit saying that if someone works with a longstanding impairment that's good proof that they can work with that long appellate impairment that is that is the case that is what is happening in this case and the record is clear her doctor consistently noted that she was working despite these complaints of pain despite all the fluctuations during the period from two thousand and five all the way through may first two thousand eight just very briefly as well color brings pelley to mention and to explain why the evidence that koehler points to is is not important enough for the l j to mention in the decision we and we can explain that and that wouldn't be a koehler conceded that dr calm agrees examination was consistent with with dr park's opinion and said in the district court but that was just a small part of the record contradicts this court's longstanding precedent that we should give the district court an opportunity to rule on these issues and that appellant shouldn't change arguments when they come to this court again  on objective evidence and in fact dr park talked about disorders of the spine he wrote the opinion on a quote unquote as the l j specifically said a disorders of the spine questionnaire i so in the end this court has a long standing precedent that the best evidence that someone can work with their impairments is that someone worked with their impairments in  color worked with the impairments the reasoning doesn't need to extrapolate on all the details in the record and indeed color doesn't really point out any inaccuracy in the ale jase decision the a l j evident in the medical records while she worked and that's the ultimate finding in this case that she worked despite every single one of these of these conditions of these of of her complaints  of extreme pain and that finding that statement well before clear was a reasonable basis for the ale to determine that she continued good didn't could continue to work after may first two thousand and eight when she produced no evidence that her condition deteriorated around that time the commissioner is arguing that some of the arguments in our reply brief are presenting a new legal theories but that is not what we did this court has held that when the commissioner raises a defense to the  that's when waiver is violated thank you your honors thank you very much the case was taken under