in the record that was either not considered or improperly discredited that leaves the administrative law judges decision tainted with legal error and her residual functional capacity determination not based on substantial evidence i was little decision and this is the first of the key points that we wanted to raise this morning with respect to the autopsy report at the l g s decision and the record of page twenty two the a l j mentions that no treating or examining physician found any impairments in mr dow that met or medically equal the listed impairment and we would suggest that if one were to read the autopsy report and specifically the fact that the coroner found seventy five to ninety percent blockage in at least is not entirely random what we're suggesting is that if one were to also properly credit the subject of symptom testimony offered by mr giles and his activities of daily living questionnaires and by his wife after he died at the age of hearing that you would see that he complained for example that he was often you know tired after being up for a couple hours and he would have to sleep for two or three hours but doing things like cooking and the laundry wore him out that he was really was unable to drive around because that him out as well in fact if you look even just at the object of medical evidence we see that in the disability period starting in april of two thousand and then up to october of two thousand and two just a few months before he died of a heart attack mr dow had at least five episodes of fainting three of which were deemed severe and took him to the emergency room at the end of that period the october two thousand and two period he was painting just sitting in a computer class and what we think that evidence  offered with respect to the physical limitations pain and fatigue and what we believe the better argument is that it's not necessarily that the autopsy report requires a finding of meeting the exact criteria of the listing impairment the list of impairment but compel a finding of medical equivalence for at least some period at the very least the autopsy report directly contradicts any conclusion that mr dow did not suffer from a cardiac illness which in least in quantitative measure met the listing requirements to work from the residual functional capacity backwards at the end of the deliberative process the l j determined that mr dal could work either as a security guard or in the assembly of small parts and we would suggest that the only way you could reach that conclusion is to not not evaluate the evidence and come up with substantial evidence in favor of that conclusion but basically to completely ignore some of the subjective and back to the probative subjective symptom testimony with respect to his physical limitations for example i've mentioned mr dal had at least five episodes of fainting in the during the disability period three of which are severe the first of which the first of these occurred when he was working as a parking lot attendant probably a similar job and in fact admittedly a similar job to being a security guard that the last i heard while he was just sitting at a computer typing those physical limits that's objective medical evidence that is inconsistent with a finding that the man could work as a security guard and if there aren't there are no specific findings in the records specific clear and convincing findings in the records that suggest that any of any of that objective medical evidence is wrong there is no evidence of mullingar ing and there is evidence of at least some impairment that could cause these symptoms and in that situation what the l g a is required to do is make specific clear and convincing findings with respect to why the objective medical evidence with respect to fainting for example  widow that mr doll had problems folding socks that he had problems fitting his belt through his belt loops it would be impossible to credit that testimony to believe that testimony and concluded that he was capable of working i parts and yet it's an contradicted testimony and again there is no evidence of monitoring and there is evidence of medical impairments that could cause those limitations and if there are no clear and legitimate reasons set forth in the a preoccupied with some of the obviously irrelevant things in the l g s decision which had no no bearing on his physical limitations but might have been found distasteful there is a long summary of past drug abuse in the a james decision and yet at the end of course we're all the o j is forced to realize that there is no evidence of that anywhere near the disability period in fact for several years prior to the disability period if you work backwards then from what the l j said mr dow could do mention that with respect to the autopsy report if it's not if the autopsy report does not compel a finding of medical equivalents to a list of impairment we believe at the very least it is inconsistent with some of the findings that he didn't have a heart problem there is some evidence in the record to the extent that his heart was fine that he had a cardiac exam just a month before he died of a heart attack and the conclusion was that his e k g was ok there's an abnormal e k g in the record there's an ok record the government makes the argument that it's possible to just have the severe coronary disease until the day you die and it just doesn't manifest itself i think when pressed on we would have to agree that if that is possible but there's no evidence in the record that that's what happened and no doctor actually ever looked at the autopsy report and offered any evidence to be able to pay the doctor for the government dr warner and his residual functional capacity assessment in may of zero three which is actually after the autopsy report had been concluded simply found that the medical evidence did not indicate any life threatening disease but the notations in the record clearly indicate he did not have the autopsy report before him he did not review it despite the fact good morning shane bond on behalf of the commissioner of social security your honour's claims death from coronary artery disease in this case is not dispositive the standard for assessing disability under the social security act is twofold first claimant had to prove that  had a medically determinable impairment that could be expected to result in death or could have lasted or could be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months second claimant had to prove that his impairments rendered him unable to perform substantial  kinkel activity for consecutive twelve month period the medical evidence in this case did not show that the claimant had satisfied the second part of the disability standard despite evidence of blocked arteries the treatment records consistently show that claim had normal cardiac examinations diagnostic tests such as x rays e k g and exercise stress testing were essentially normal when claimant did complain of chest pain his doctors described it as atypical for a skinny of daily living which would contradict his wife's testimony and prior statements that clean and neat regarding his daily activities claims treating doctors did not assess any of functional or work limitations during his life time and the only version and one quoted the two thousand two version of the listing language which changed between those two versions which is the one that would be applicable to the strict als case it would be the version that was know for the questions counsel thank you the case just argued will be submitted for decision