in proper consideration of the treating physician evidence as in proper consideration of the side effects of medication and a lack of substantial evidence to support the algaes credibility decision evidence for them and in this record they offered that the lower back pain could have been caused by a set disease a set joint arthritic change or scarring around the site of surgery two surgeries that mr from had had on his lower back the stomach a pain could have been caused by stimulus this compressing the spinal cord the a l j did not consider any of these opinions substantial medical evidence in the records from one thousand nine hundred ninety six into nine hundred ninety nine that consistently chronicles mr from pain complaints and his treating doctors medical explanations for that pain j has improperly chosen not to mention our analyze this evidence in his decision addressing the pain medications there was nobody going by any of the medical professionals in this but that mr frum was taking absolutely massive amounts of pain medications mr thrown stated that this imperative concentration and made him drowsy requiring him to lay down to rest and t nap the record illustrates only sporadic attempts at activities punctuated by this need to rest there is no evidence in the record to support the l g s conclusion that mr frum could working if he were walking down a hallway that does not equate to a person being able to stand and walk for six hours in an eight hour workday on a consistent basis as is required by light work d a pain specialist and treating physician stated that mr frum was using the opiates that were prescribed to him responsibly there was no use or misuse of these opiates addressing the credibility they might have before this court contains four years of consistent evidence of mr from hurting himself and every activity that he attempted in his desire to lead a normal life he was not able to sustain any activity that he did in the small and he's this court stand that a person should not be penalize it in a disability can't read something to lead to a normal life the most that this record shows is mr from accomplishing four hours of activity in a day even then the record shows that this would set him back and require more pain medications residual functional capacity  defined under social security rulings as the most that a person can do nothing at least mr prince residual functional capacity is less than that needed to perform regular and continuous employment which is defined in the social security rulings as eight hours a day five days a week or an equivalent schedule sustaining work is impossible for mr from the record shows that his activities are sporadic inconsistent and unpredictable as this court said in leicester occasional symptom free periods even the sporadic ability to work are not inconsistent with disability conclusion because the treating doctors in this case offer legitimate opinions to support this or from pain complaints and because his pain the side effects of medications and the sporadic activity leave mr frum with a residual functional capacity where he is unable to sustain regular and continuous employment he should be found disabled pursuant to the social security act but let me ask you about the credibility provides is clarified in the record he has chosen to ignore the explanations for each example and if i can give an example of that would you please the inner tubing occurred eight months before mr frum became disabled that was an example of an activity that he enjoyed doing however he became disabled that was in january o working sixteen hours a week at that point in august and ninety six was when he had the m r i and immediately had the laminectomy the other examples in the record that the a l j gives for example  mr from taking car trips well there are specific explanations that go along with the fact that he didn't just drive to arizona when he went to arizona he had to stop every hour to get out for an after half an hour he lay down in the car thirty twenty five to thirty percent of the time during that trip so when he went to disneyland with his family his family would go over to the park and he would join them for an hour and he would have to go back to the hotel and r this is all evidence in the record when he went to a firefighters convention in california he had to take massive amounts of additional medication in order to endure the plane's flight and then when he got down there he could only go to the convention for an hour or two before he had to go back to his hotel room and rest there's one example in there of him roughhousing with his son one example over a period of three or four years and the record and then he was hoping it would would appear later and the doctors thought that he was he was going to be able to go back to work because he wanted to so badly that it wasn't just wasn't to be thank you thank you that come before the commission or social security applicants this court is a quite a few occasions to rule on social security matters that come up before it and every one of those cases begins the opinion begins with a recitation of the standard which is  standard is substantial evidence and the rules of stansell evidence as you know l j is only to be overturned in this role of fact finder if no rational mind could have found on the basis of the facts before him what he thought now if i understand the question your honor i think they definitely this court can find the person disabled when there is none i really think the a l j here understood the test and the role of  think there's a problem with that your honor there's a there's a tendency on this on the on the part of players representatives to say that well you're calling me a liar if you ever find that any of my complaints are not credible well i don't know you're i am objective impairment versus subjective pain i would say that a person can believe that they have an objective impairment and they don't in fact whether they can believe that they feel pain and they don't i don't know about that that i don't i don't know that i can back that up but regardless of that i do think that whatever standard we're going to be applying to the credibility i do think that clinking missing reasons are he hurt himself trying to move it so so let me be supports him well i don't think so you are right i think the support the l g a because my point is that if you claim that you're disabled by back pain you know how is it reasonable to even think that you're going have said and it's going to limit him from doing heavy work it's going to live in him from going medium work it's not going to limit him from doing light work for the l j or pro any of his doctors because no doctor has come out and said this gentleman is disabled what they fusion that occurred in the surgery and he could have that impairment that is not in conflict with the adjacent germination but that doesn't you know it as waived because they didn't object to that finding in the magistrates report and recommendation so that's why i argue in my argument is that by not objecting to it that you should deem that it's waste and  still open and the greenhouse really doesn't control i mean us v hardesty in this court sitting on bank directly overruled greenhouse you have i know you're familiar with this you have the brit line in the mccall line j rambled on a little bit and made some pretty awesome it's about the subject the danger of pain that can be defended i still think that on the facts of this case there is no way that we can say they don't want to found that this man can work a man who does a lot of strenuous physical activities a man who is claiming to be disabled by backache but at least five interstate driving trips during that here's my problem with this  lets not able to consistently engage in any activities again it was ill advised for him to do something activities that he did that he was not able to do then for more than a very short period of time days as he says in his in the hearing he and he has up to three good days a week but it's very unpredictable and he's not going to now when he's going to be able to be at work or not they don't work because of his back pain and that an employer would require somebody to be available forty hours a week on a consistent basis and that's why mr frum would not be able to engage in light work and to me