happens the plaintiff debbie stage in this case the administrative law judge's decision to find that ms stage could stand and walk for six hours throughout it workday lifting and carrying twenty pounds for up to one third of the work day is not supported by substantial evidence in addition the l j's credibility determination is based on multiple unreasonable inferences and therefore the credibility determination should be reversed by this court nevertheless stand and walk for six hours out of an eight hour workday the only evidence in the record that could support that decision is the opinion of the state agency doctor dr corcoran the difficulty with his and he for the first time determined that the claimant had suffered from what's called a fixed flexion deformity of the hip causing the leg to appear shorter than the right leg and also the walk with an intelligent ga opinion of record given following the evaluation by the orthopedic surgeon and dr oni's evaluation is the only of a valuation by an expert in this case and the campbell versus asked group is this court reversed they are just decision in part because the l j relied on the state agency opinion yet significant evidence had come into the record following that opinion and then go ions vs call them which side of the page six eighty the fatally the administrative law judge failed to submit that m r i to medical scrutiny as she should have done since it was new and potentially decisive medical evidence close quote plaintiff believes that same type of argument reasoning should govern in the stages case because as the opinion by dr oni but the evidence by dr only could be potentially decisive for if miss stage was limited to sedentary work on able to stand and walk for six out of eight hours a day she would be disabled based on the medical vocational guidelines as well as the testimony of the vocational expert in this case the shelter for call correctly the  not get the epidural treatment that had been recommended to work and the hip replacement surgery you're an indication of record as to why or anything that you could in there only there's no indication that i saw as to why  correct that her testimony was she does that only with the motorized curd that's correct either with a motorized cart or after walking a very short time she leaves her grand grandchildren or to themselves or children to shop or she would sit up front and that she didn't testify that shopping for hours out was in a form yeah she said she went shopping twice a month and that you know for hours reasonable inference as reasonable as anything is that it took her so long to shop because it was very hard for her to get around she didn't there was no indication that she was on her feet for hours washing with doing that and for you to ask you one other record related question here i thought it was some point she was working full time and was had nine thousand dollars in earnings in the years that are in well that's partially correct and what she testified to page forty of the record that her job was technically a full time  job it was in a restaurant tavern but that her employer allowed her to come in whenever she could and she might work a full week but then she might only come into his three days a week because she was already experiencing back pain at that significant back pain at that time so  reflected the amount she actually worked while she called it a full time job because technically she should have been working if she could have because she could have worked she could work as much as she wanted to her and i would i was the testimony and i believe that's one contradicted and in the record outside assistance first that is incorrect because mistakes testified better sister comes in to help take care of the housework what she actually said was her granddaughter and her sister do almost all of the housework the dusting the cleaning keeping the laundry the only thing that staged it was quick to cage only very simple things microwave soup things like that and she did the dishes but she had to sit while doing the dishes so she did get outside assistance and that maybe isn't the most important thing because her teenagers were able to help her out doing the physical activity in the house they'll jay jay then remarked that the claimant told dr only that before she could schedule surgery she needed to make arrangements for the care of her children and the l g infer from that that mistake was their friend gauging more activity caring for her for her children than she indicated that's not a reasonable inference that these were young teenagers thirteen or fourteen or fourteen and fifteen at that time that misstated didn't want to leave them alone at home washee was at the hospital having surgery is not a reasonable basis to find that in the station gauge the greater activity testified to similarly there is the question of the full time work to l j relied on that as an inconsistency but as indicated in the stage explained that fully in the decision that it wasn't really a full time job but she could was prescribed but there is no mention in the record of it and fact that the consultative examination ms stage was wearing the brace and the doctor noted it so they all do is wrong on his on his facts but in addition  that's not base a proper basis for finding the stage not not credible that they will join never asked to produce the prescription there would be no reason for her to if they also never question the veracity of her testimony and of course back braces don't require a prescription a doctor could say i think you know a back brace might help you to misstate with an eighth grade education that maybe bent the doctor prescribe that there might not have actually been a written prescription but if they all day wanted to see it he should have been fired up thank you thank you condition had worsened the l j further noted that plaintiff did not receive any treatment for her purportedly disabling back pain and hip pain for a full year after she left she became disabled that is not to say the plaintiff did not receive any medical treatment this is not a case where the l j holds against the claimant failure to seek treatment for fail to seek emergency services rather the against her credibility and application materials plaintiff reported that she attended prescribed a back brace but as be noted there was no mention of a back brace in the medical record in argument just now  criticized the l j statement noting that she had in fact presented to the concentrated examination wearing the brakes i certainly could have been more precise in his statement in stating that the appeared nowhere in the medical treatment record rather than the medical record generally even if the eldest imprecision were in error it is harmless the l t is reasoning remain finish the thought about the back brace quickly i will never get to that so plan to fail to explain how this how presenting to a consultation examination wearing a back brace where there is no mention of the back brace anywhere in any of the treatment records actually fact no less than twenty one times in her initial brief twelve times in the reply brief she wants this court to place great emphasis on this recommendation as evidence of the severity of her condition and she wants the support presume that person with such a recommendation would have profound functional limitations yet she also wants this court to pay little attention that she shows to forgo the surgery the l j found plaintiff's decision to forgo the surgery weighed against her allegations plaintiff argues that the l j was required to ask why she chose to forgo the surgery there is nothing in the rulings or regulations that requires the sale jay to ask for an explanation rather the oni's seven page treatment record to support his statement the plaintiff decided not to pursue surgery in the treatment record plaintiff said she had to make arrangements for her children and that she would call when she was ready for surgery the record also reflected a follow up conversation in january of two thousand and eleven where plaintiff said that she had not scheduled surgery and that she was holding off playing a game reasoning to dr own she said that she needed to arrange for child care and she wanted to hold off the able to i did not need to read question her to see if she had changed her mind to see if she now had new reasons for not pursuing surgery they'll take considered the evidence and consider her explanation moreover the a l j in accordance with social security ruling ninety six desh seven p considered other information in the case record the l j looked to what happened after dr only recommended hip replacement namely her decision to seek care from her family practice physician dr rivera the type of care she received and the physical examination findings following dr on his recommendation i have also discussed her daily activities and that the consideration of her daily activities is weighing consider credibility even if the l j erred in considering her daily activities as she testified to those activities and as she described them in application extent that plaintiff testified to using a motorized cart to taking hours to perform shopping she never mentioned those difficulties to her contemporaneous treatment providers when asked if she had difficulties with daily living she given a pretty serious hip problem where she manages to do her grocery shopping with a motorized card that's well and good we can easily imagine maybe she could do some sedentary work with the sit stay in option under those kinds of circumstances but white work six hours a day o and we're not required to accept plaintiff's subjective statements of her functional limitations i would imagine that someone who presents for treatment would express difficulties of the nature plaintiff mentioned so it was reasonable for the l j to at least consider as one of the factors that she did not complain now let's turn to that hip replacement again and what evidence followed  and characterized as dr oni's suggestion for hip replacement as a market deviation from earlier records if it were in fact a market deviation from the prior records while one expects that to be borne out by physical examination findings by the type of care she received by the recommendations given by her treatment providers and that's precisely what the look to look to what happened afterwards the  noted that just one month after dr own e recommended hip replacement plaintiff on muscular skeletal examination had no pain on inspection she had a normal range of pain and some reduction range of motion but nonetheless her physician continued to recommend the plaintiff remain active that she can gauge in regular cardiovascular exercise and that she engaged in normal activities as tolerate here like this court's recent decision and step the cold and the l j competently grappled with competing evidence and provided a legitimate reason for favoring some evidence over other plaintiff is not asking the court to presume anything about someone needing a hip replacement but that the l j should not have presumed that that would should not change anything concerning the plaintiff's ability and that's why the m j should have shopping that is inconsistent with the plaintiff's testimony that she did almost no physical activities at home or or outside of the home shouldn't even attenders children's school activities because of the condition she  in and finally while the back imaging remained the same the hip imaging clearly didn't have clearly for the first time with dr only examined or there was an opinion of severe arthritis or moderately severe arthritis but this