pattern in chicago currently where i am i can drive for miles to the my office in less than forty minutes and it's miles away so you have less traffic in wisconsin rapids just to thank you good morning i'm david duncan i represent deborah slate miss leighton appears on applications for title two in title sixteen of the social security act she was born on july eleventh hundred fifty six alleged an island set of disability of may first two thousand and nine the date she was alleged disabled she was fifty two years of age her past work history was light or higher so therefore if the l g actually had a tenth grade education she went out there for three l j would have found that she was limited to sedentary work should have met the medical vocational guidelines he found her limited to light and found that she could perform her past work and say or her past work which was light and this particular case she suffered from depression hepatitis c chronic pulmonary obstructive pulmonary disease left and right knee pain with noted osteoarthritis and both since and bilateral shoulder problems with osteoarthritis the issue before the court is one that's relatively simple this is a clean his there is very little else involved this is one issue the claim its credibility the court has previously held in purity in versus barnhart that a claimant subjective testimony supported by medical evidence that satisfies the pain standard is in a sufficient to support a finding of disability indeed a certain situation pain along can be disabling even if it or when its existence is unsupported by objective evidence in this particular case all of the  findings pertain to what he perceived as a lack of objective evidence and a few other points that i addressed primarily in the brief the issue in this is whether the of l j und any kind of proper pain analysis he did not one only needs to look at the potential medical information or medical issues involved here whether it be hepatitis which  noted as causing fatigue it or given its chronic nature the fact that she had her osteoarthritis in both knees one of which had to have surgery which would have potentially been the limiting her from standing the fact that she also had bilateral arthritis in both shoulders which would have potentially limited her from lifting even ten pounds more than a fusion only which would have potentially placed her in a lie category she testified  provided a detailed dull function which were two different lines indicating what her limitations were her hands cramped after only ten minutes she had difficulty buttoning her pants or her shirt tying her own shoes procedure that's usually a good sign of credibility that no one would undertake such a painful procedures unless they hope to alleviate more painful symptoms in this particular kid is slow the judge did not do that pain analysis he did not consider all of these statements he instead focused on a few points he noted for instance it may have been she reported that she had to lie down and sleep for three hours but we don't even need to go there because all that needs to be done is to have gone one step below where the judge came in  we don't need to find that she's completely unable to work we don't need to find that she's limited to part time work all as we need to do is look at the evidence and determine whether she's limited to sedentary work if she's limited sedentary work needs the grid rule under the most medical vocational guidelines and would be found disabled and if you just focused on the fact that the judge really didn't do much analysis of pain and whether her knees along could be causing pain weatherby in the two knees or the two shoulders you can objectively assess that there's no pain no meter that people are hooked up to that cess what level of pain they have you have to look at it as a whole and assess the whole case and determine whether or not it is just not in you indicated you're pursuing growth the disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income in this case present in the plaintiff's last data insured indication i have is the medical treatment the reports that we have in the record with one exception are from after that date two thousand and ten and forward correct most of her medical treatment was in two thousand and twelve so if she's measured with osteoarthritis in the knees in two thousand and twelve that condition doesn't just appear shallow yes sure but i mean i don't think i've ever seen a case before where there was no diagnosis doctor stated an opinion at all in regards to what her condition was or was not other than the state agency doctors who indicated a light both of their opinions or were rendered fairly early in the process they did not have the full record up until two thousand and thirteen i believe and have to double check that number but we have the more recent records which continue to show additional pain and steroids injections in fact i believe she started having steroid injections again shortly before the hearing and this was testimony that she made herself and care i got this right dr carlson examined her first as a as an outside examining physician for the agency and but also practices with her treating physicians my understanding and may please court will hanum behalf of the commissioner of social security like to start where josh hamilton ended which is on the fact that there were no medical opinions whatsoever in this record that suggested greater limitation than what the able j found in his r f c finding it's most likely for that reason that miss leighton in her arguments relies on her subjective complaints but the able to a thoroughly consider all of her subjective allegations and be able to i was not required to wholesale adopt those without looking at the rest of the record and in this case the l j also considered the mild to moderate objective test results the fact that the physicians who missed slayton were unable to find any evidence to substantiate her allegations pain the fact that miss leighton was also prescribed generally conservative treatment and that miss leighton had a good response to that treatment the issue was not the fact that miss leighton had a host of physical impairments which failed they did recognize by finding that since march two thousand and eleven and again that is after the date last  so this is indeed an s s i only case that since then she had a host of impairments which they l j found to be severe as they just record explained it's not the fact that those impairments themselves exist and that she had a diagnosis of them it's the kind of work related limitations caused by those impairments and the l j here evaluated the relevant evidence and looked at the fact that first the objective medical tests including x rays m thousand and eleven at which time he actually did render an opinion that she was precluded from heavy manual labor and also from jobs that involved frequent bending squatting and stooping she did see a doctor continue to see dr carlson she examined all of the other joints aside from the right knee and he actually found very good stability in all of her joints said she was doing well and said he had no further  her elbow and icing it and again he rendered no opinion whatsoever as to limit her any particular kind of exertional level of work so at the heart of this case is miss leighton who would have liked j to adopt all of her subjective complaints the fact that the did not do so is not reversible error miss leighton is the one who had a burden to furnish the evidence to prove that she was disabled and she failed to do the took the evidence and crafted the most limited see that he did which was more limited than what the state agency reviewing doctors richardson shah found and based on that are finding which is a reduced range of light work the l j found that she was still capable of doing her past relevant work as a laundry worker for those reasons unless the panel has any questions as well as for the reason stated in the commissioner's brief we asked that this court affirmed the district her subjective complaints be honored all's we need to do is reduce for from light to sedentary the fact that she said she had to sleep three hours a day is irrelevant that's not necessary that would be wor all we have to do is assess her pain is the condition that she has sufficient to believe that if the judge would have applied a pain analysis he would have reduced it from white to said harry meaning she can't stand for six out of eight hours but two out of eight can't lift twenty pounds acutely but only ten and so that's the significant issue here and the court has said repeatedly and in the in various cases that this pain analysis must be undertaken and that pain alone is sufficient but yet we find nothing in this record showing that the judge evaluated the pain and complied with the pain