failing to weigh the opinions of the treating physicians and treating psychiatrist pursuant to the check the factors set forth in the regulations in basing the credibility determination and improper inferences and this characterization of the record were inconsistent with ms the next election on that station but the l g knew that she had climbed the ladder because he saw that in the treatment no where the claimant had fallen off a ladder had to go see a doctor because she injured herself similar and she was feeling good for several hours so it appears that that's when she engaged in this activity after she had just had this treatment and that i believe the next day a very shortly thereafter she ended up at the doctor's office again in severe pain with the doctor recommending that she had been found disabled based on the medical cation guidelines and so that's part of the that aspect of the plan but then in addition her psychiatrist opined that she was disabled independently based on the mental panic disorder i think it's significant in this case because the consultants at examiner the state that the the psychologist that the government sent the plaintiffs to see he gave a j f four forty so while the d s m four five might not be i think the highest score that showed was a seventy five but that was for the period prior to the alleged onset of disability i think it was fifty was the highest i believe after her alleged onset of this that in two thousand and eight she worked part time for six months and then had to quit the job in two thousand and nine she worked part time for two to three months and then had to quit the job and in two thousand and ten she could only work for four days and then had to put the  own so it seems to me summarizing the fifty some odd forty some odd pages of the government's brief their position is that there were enough opinions in the record to show that when she was compliant with treatment and she was doing what she need to do she actually reached a pretty good level of functioning so i mean obviously if it's a case where there's just differences of opinion the a panic level where she was sleeping very poorly only a few hours a night she was a third of all and that was i would say at least half of the time and then there are other times when she was doing doing well but this court has noted that you know if half of the time the claimant is not doing well then they probably can't sustain work activity and that kind of gets to the question of how they are directed treating psychiatrists opinion first of all the errors they didn't even recognize that there was a treating psychiatrist she says that the record contains an opinion from pillars community mental health and then she goes on to say she's not giving it great weight she doesn't mention dr berrisford by name she doesn't mention that he's a treating psychiatrist doesn't mention that had been treating ms or neck you for three years by the time he gave his opinion and those are all critical factors in the regulations to determine whether or not how much weight to give to the treating doctor's opinion so  properly way that opinion then she gives great way to the state agency psychologist opinions but just really on conclusory basis saying that their opinions are consistent with the record and they're well informed these are just the people who read the record never never saw the claimant that that's correct  and then she went on to say that the examinations and test results don't support the need for a cane but they are days not medically qualified to make that determination and we do have evidence of spinal stenosis and moderate to severe degenerative disc disease throughout the lumbar spine and evidence some reduced sensation in the fee and your priest range of motion and based on that the treating physician said i believe my patient missy is again for standing and walking eagle morning honors my name is katherine segal i represent the commissioner for social security and the l g here with faced with numerous and starkly inconsistent statements from the claimant that know there's so much more in the record that she never she never tells you why she thinks you know people with this long list of things wrong with them are actually finding or i don't see  anything well she she's looking for an underlying basis for the claimants allegation right and she doesn't well she sa pulmonary disease obesity cetera et cetera but all of this just gets rattled off and she doesn't explain how she can say that this woman is functional on the drugs when he says constantly going to the doctors and saying she isn't she doesn't know the degree of this to know such as being very mild which is consistent with the record but it's just that's not one if that was the only thing that was wrong with her perhaps you know maybe a lot of people have is but it's not that there's a huge list of things and the doctors are giving her epidurals i mean we look sometimes to see are the doctors responding to these complaints because that gives you some sense in their professional medical judgment there's really something there she's getting the blocks in the epidural treatments and they don't last very long well if there are there are a number of factors at play here one of the things she's considering is the objective find hurting right a number of times given she certainly said that she can't get out of bed without her husband's hell and that she can't she can't be a walk without holding on to something that she's suffered for five years with walking struggling with walking and and you know never didn't use a cane during that period she was held on to things right and you know any evidence that this was phony was is there was there is no evidence well not video evidence but i mean she testifies that she period during this this is right in the middle of her claim period she's working six to eight months eight hours a day three to four days a week these are this is a long shift this is not you know i'm i'm working for an hour and then i quit because it's too hard for me to lift a tra when people are going the extra mile we don't want to punish them for that but that that's something that the l j can consider when one's trying to determine whether she's credible which at one point she's saying she's so limited that she can't even get out of bed without help and on the other hand she's showing up of work eight hours a day lifting trays of food and working for example there are levels of not being able to get out of bed with help and then your muscles as time passes for through two or three minutes portrayal of her of her symptoms is so much greater than what her her activities and and her objective findings in getting the actual you know doctor appointments that she's going to it but as  group prescription was actually i mean she actually had the cane at the hearing and that was something that the l g observed in the air which i knows better than the doctor i guess the l g is trying to find an underlying basis for the cane use and when she looks at the record there are dozens of instances where she has a normal gait and she doesn't complain about needing a cane i mean it's it's objective findings that are are trying she's trying to determine whether that cane use is something that's put on for the hearing and for her for effect or whether it's something that she's actually using day to day people use canes don't always need them and in this instance she didn't even use it i mean like for when she was to work but as we found them when he w working with a cane i understand that but that doesn't it doesn't mean that other times she needs  didn't have a relationship with the claim and he had no reason to skew his opinion in favor of this i would actually sue me as a reason to skew it against the claimant if anything when you look at the  bull reflecting the psychological condition i said it wasn't reflecting the functional capacity but this court's recognize that jihad does not relate to functional capacity it's really used as a treatment tool for planning treatment by doctors it's not used to make a functional capacity assessment and that's one of the reasons why the l g shouldn't be required to address it not a word i mean it just seems crazy i know that the profession has tried to move to a more precise methodology that so you think you could be able to concentrate and concentration means that you are psychologically capable of working in this instance where we're looking at pass information ability is something that so depressed mood and all that would have been part of the basis for his opinion and even though consult a physical doctor dr bill in the way of a noted that the claimant had an abnormal gait that her range of flexion was only fifty percent of of normal and match was unable to heal or told what and had difficulty getting on the exam table and those are things that in the commissionaire regulations show evidence of motor weakness so the fact that she has a clubfoot condition