and we'll hear from mr sloan may please the court my name is steven sloan and i represent appellant choi hines this case regards the medical opinion of an internal medicine specialist whose conclusions were supported by the root the results of a detailed functional capacity evaluation as well as a review of the complete medical record at that time the ministry of law judge discounted this opinion upon the basis of a factual misrepresentation of the record and said uncritically accept the findings of stale say agency reviewers of no particular specialty who did not examined the claimant in doing so the l j did not properly address the factors that she was required to consider by the regulations and her discussion of these contrasting opinions does not illustrate a decision based on substantial evidence this is financial evidence standards cannot be satisfied when supported by false statements regarding critical evidence because it does not build a logical bridge from the evidence to the conclusion which is a long established requirement of this  court in this case the l g has offered at least two blatant misrepresentations of the should be evidence in support of her decision i don't mean to quibble when i hear the word misrepresentation i am in for intentional misrepresentation is that she's addressing actually contains normal a large amount of objective findings of clinical findings and observations and to the extent that it does address a subjective complaints also that's that would be true of essentially every single functional capacity evaluation and you know and indeed it is true of almost every single medical visit that any claimant would attend i ask you a question about that because i actually wasn't sure that there was an inaccuracy there and here's here's functional capacity evaluation when dr when dr holly dallas who's mr hines is treating opinion or treating physician was asked to fill out a form instead of just filling it out based on a subject implant she actually sent him out to a physical included a large amount of abnormal findings including a limited range of motion testing the spine degree skate gate cadence and use of a cane and observe stance it shifted to the left observations of a dragging right foot as well as a large amount of scar tissue on his back and many m ore objective findings the judge simply said that this was based on subjective complaints and discounting it and then cited to a single exhibit as being as as contrast ing with it the difficulty with this  to a single visit for a migraine headaches something that the judge does not find to be a severe impairment here i think context is pretty important when we're looking at at the evidence and whether it supports a and you are not and in this case my wife suffers from migraines i have yet to go with her to the diamond had a clinic and and have them perform range of motion testing or anything like this so i think normal findings in that context are incredibly  findings that because it was based on subjective plaints and in this case i think dr dallas does exactly what you would hope that a tree position does in this case instead of simply taking the subjective statements of the claimant she did send him out to function best evaluation counsels would correct the plaintiff is trying to testify that he was not doing anything to try to get better i think it's somewhat true i think at this point it's a combination of i think that was a little confusing at the hearing because i think unfortunately mr hines is a very afraid of both surgery and injections and i think at that time one of the things he said was he  was he was trying to seek disability benefits so we'd have more access to medical care and be able to seek a wider variety of care i would also note that he has undergone physical therapy chiropractics lexer therapy as well as  narcotic pain medications in the record well i i don't mean to be flip about this but if he's if he normally an effective treatments of his conditions involve and injections i can understand he may not be eager to do that but he is also seeking taxpayer supported benefits to support that preference not to take steps that most folks would think might make him better and i think in this case while there is there is a reference to injections being offered he does reference and this is true i think  generally as well that oftentimes a judge in the injections are a short term solution for a problem as far as the surgery there was no discussion of the surgery at all and and the judge doesn't really address why there either should be in this case he's not he doesn't just have a back problem he has several different more complicated problems as well as being an obese individual of three hundred and forty five pounds which is often often contradicts you know contraindicate surgery ultimately the judge doesn't really delve into any of that and her discussion of the evidence she simply says that she cites to conservative treatment without any expiration of that which is something that this court has criticized it says certainly in the past and i would note that you know in in making all these judgments the judge is doing this you know with a year and a half of medical evidence that you know no medical opinion supports or you know in this regard the stage the reviewers were were prior were far prior to a doctor dallas's opinion and you know these crux of this case i think is the is the just a decision to take that that state agency penny give it great weight while dismissing the treating opinion that is based on past year value which i do think that something like conservative treatment certainly doesn't overcome that failure to to address those factors i think barrett vs barnhart speaks to that as well because they acknowledge that essentially the judges it was a credibility house at the time it's not  l j had to compare dr hinds i'm sorry dr dallas's opinion with her treatment records and here there is only one treatment record to compare the opinion the l g a reasonably found that since that one note didn't support her opinion that was one reason to get  the treatment relationship she said that dr dallas only trains four times which was actually overly generous because it appears that she only examined him but the fact that they had a limited trip at the time of the opinion was another therapist performed objective and discuss the results of that testing but the fact remains that the evaluation was based in part on his subjective complained particular two of the most important limitation for social security disability evaluation is that the sit and stand appear to have been taken directly from his reports to the physical therapist and then adopted by dr dale so you know the case barrett i think has been right too probably by coun evidence is going to be added to the record after the state doctors review it because it's the best house of social security disability process works but the evidence that is pointed to in the reply brief of the argument is not sufficient to show that persuasive but also the state agency doctors had many physical examinations at their disposal that showed somewhat similar findings they had consultative exam from dr taiwo that said you know it showed he hadn't and he used his cane he had  limited range of most hips and spine so this isn't a case where there was something new that the state doctors were able to look at they already had imaging they already had that they could look at so none of this evidence is sufficient to show that their opinions were outdated to insurance coverage or he didn't try he it with made it very clear that he was not getting injections due to risk not cost he mentioned at the hearing you know injections would be expensive and they all just circled back and said but that's not what you told me you study weren't getting it because of risk and he said yes and the injections weren't just recommended one time they were recommended consistently while he was getting medical treatment and so it doesn't appear that you know finances had had any reason i think the important part of here is this is not harmless because well not only did the court rely upon this but without that rationale there is really a dearth of anything supporting giving greater weight to that state agency opinion and while opposing counsels talks  constantly criticized cherry picking i think it's very clear in this case and ultimately if if if there were significant records that showed normal findings on a consistent basis then one would expect the judge to be able to cite to more than one and one that's in the