could stand and walk for six hours out of an eight hour day and so finding the a l j rejected three medical opinions contained in the record all consistently stating in indicating that she could not perform the standing and in standing and walking we're going to focus this morning i'd like to focus on the treating physician opinion as well as the judges like work finding in the in rejecting the in the opinion of dr parker the algae focused on isolated parts of the record and failed to consider the evidence as a whole for example he never mentioned the march two thousand and twelve m r i which supports dr parker's opinion on what level of review it and just of the district court opinion yes we are reviewing the district opinion that's current no vote than we're looking at whether the findings go back and look at the j's decision itself it's another review and yes ok so the magistrate judge can give us a map if we were found that in the alice's persuasive but just honest kind of standing on its own right yes it's persuasive so i'm not binding on anyone in any way on your decision so the was a year and eight months later in november of two thousand and thirteen but that m r i also showed abnormalities that showed bulging disks it's true dr parker st each of them particularly new glasses but some and barker as well that is that there were no physicians who spoke consistently about this isn't that the ground on which he  had radiation into her left leg that she had muscle spasms that you had significantly reduced his case is the question of whether there is any medical evidence by anybody that your client could do but work there is that you had the residual functional capacity to do her previous work that is any doctor who said that you could do that now that's a question i'm going to address but that's that's my problem here because we have hill agency single decision makers who were lay people not medical providers who made opinions but those opinions were never mentioned by the way but they did find light work and they have no weight in a social security case because they're not medical opinions doctor and the close see who is the treating pain management specialist found limitations which were consistent with those of dr parker which would not allow the before months of light work and the consultative doctor dr skeen found that she had moderate limitations in stating and walking and we would contend that a moderate limitation in standing and walking would not allow someone to stay and walk for six hours out of an eight hour day which is what the found they also found she'd go back and do that kind of work so it's our contention the evidence is actually consistent that show she could not perform the exertional demands of light work as found by the l j i think it's important you mention the m r i and there was a different a new m r i in november of two thousand and thirteen nobody analyze it was the hearing was in november two thousand and thirteen so the m r i came in right before the hearing it was the last one of the last pieces of evidence on the record but it was reviewed by d but this m r i had findings of as i mentioned dismay it had findings that were that they'd actually encroached on the on the foreign men and it mentions to gnosis and i would point the court to direct your attention to the case of  true a case from the second circuit five thirty seven f third one one seven which had a similar m r i to the two the second m r i in the november two thousand and thirteen m r i and held that that m r i alone was objective evidence supported the treating physicians opinion and we would contend that that's that this court should make a similar finding at the ale che's that the m r i evidence is even though it's not they don't have a herniated disc they still find abnormalities in the second m r i which is contained in the record at page at page four eleven i'd like to reserve my remaining time for good morning your honor when it is candace upton i'm an assistant united states attorney in the eastern district of new york and i'm here today representing the acting commissioner of social security as we know the plaintiff was only forty one years old when her alleged onset date she admitted li had a long history of back pain up to twenty years she told some of her doctors treating doctors and she also had obesity and these were two severe impairments that were found by the l j immediately prior to her alleged onset date in two thousand age she worked interestingly enough and in a like job and some like jobs involved predominantly sitting and using of hand controls and this was the job she performed as an assembler and she left when she gave birth to her daughter she never returned to work and thereafter reported to some of her doctors that her career was that of a homemaker or a housewife plaintiff did not apply for disability insurance benefits an s s i for four years after her onset date until two thousand and twelve but she back pay that to two thousand and eight when she stopped working however as and stated that although the l j his conclusions may not perfectly correspond to any of the opinions he is entitled to weigh all of the evidence available to make an r s a finding that is consistent with the record as a whole that is matter of  conclusion everyone seems to say there are impediments how great they all are is hard to tell but we consistently found that there were no abnormal finding such as motor loss sensory loss abnormal gait all of them that she was in not all of them dr who a sports medicine doctor two thousand impediment was heavy lifting which was consistent with the date on that was april seventh two thousand and twelve page three fifty six dr steiner recommended only that she avoid heavy lifting the consultative examiner also agreed that she needed to only avoid one of the things she needed to avoid was heavy lifting and that that she would only heavy lifting and ironically her job i have a three fifty seven heavy lifting so taken all the evidence together which you know i can i don't want to beat a dead horse but you have moto we have so now where the detail today does get to look at the entire evidence and come up with an r f c that it's their obligation and interestingly and of unusual still that she would l j rejected the medical testimony of all the individual doctors including the treating physicians and kind of melded together its own analysis i guess i don't think it's unusual in that he did look at their examination findings and the m r i and tried to see if they die which is certainly something they're permitted to do this hour he points out it's kind of  determination as opposed to adopt finding all that's worse of stuart that's always an interesting aspect of an art see and i think the case law has left a great discretion into the l j to go through the evidence and make findings i think the sale ja discussed that the l j did in fact go through the examination findings from six different doctors that were medical experts one doctor steiner we said made an opinion about heavy lifting they actually the  examiner also talked about heavy lifting but i think our playing test big concern was the concept that they l j relied on a single decision maker which is totally off base i mean that it's what unfortunately and came up with and i can tell you in this case if in fact the l j had relied on a single decision maker we would not be here today we would have remained with that case so quickly you can imagine  it he did not rely on the single decision maker the fact that it just coincided with his r f c every file for social security has a single decision maker at and just because it jogs with there are a c it cannot be a basis for being under the assumption that perhaps they relied on that decision from a non medical person this record is quite replete with examination findings and some opinions and i don't think the l j was off base to to make the r f c decision that he did in fact make and it just so happened at step four that that our of c she was forty one years old there were other evidence about her credibility she did not use pain but we see by the m r i interestingly enough that al five s one there was improvement in that area also you know there's a year time period that we had to prove that generational requirement this is two thousand and thirteen when these doctors made these decisions that was more than five years after the alleged onset date there were large gaps in treatment she did not pursue treatment regularly she was a homemaker she did a  reasonable amount took care of a young child during this time period took care of her home to certain daily activities that were just not consistent with totally disabling back pain for a forty one year old woman whose pas grant certainly obtained consistent treatment starting in march two thousand and twelve and continuing through the hearing in november two thousand and thirteen and regarding the duration requirement dr parker specifically referenced the two thousand and twelve m said she had not yet obtained medical maximum medical improvement so certainly the condition would have continued in the evidence and indeed shows that it did the a l j and in the decision of page sixteen cites the basis for the r c fund you asked about stenosis and physical findings of limited range of motion spasm tenderness requiring treatment with epidurals injections but they all say fails to mention many other positive findings that are in this record so that's one of the concerns we have is that yes the algae extrapolated they are of c from all of the different evidence but he selectively cited from the evidence of record for example he doesn't mention the positive straight leg raising test was noted by numerous providers in the record and throughout the record and that shows there is a nerve some nerve root irritation that's what that test shows there is one of the finder of dr nicolo see found abnormal gate which was not mentioned by the l j sensory loss reflex changes so recondition seemed to worsen over time and the l j only mentioned certain findings while ignoring other other objective findings and even in discussing the evidence dr the government mention dale j never see this with what the government said that the about the limitation to heavy lifting the alj i never said anything about this so l j did not rely on that and of course as you know you can't come up with looking through the record to find some support of the they never cite in the decision itself to support the finding so we would contend that the evidence is consistent that she could not perform light work that's what the l j found the case should go back to for to reassess the r f c and to determine whether in fact