all right our third case for this morning is karen murphy against acting commissioner nancy berryhill commissioner social security mr h in two thousand and fourteen mainly on your show of credibility we'll revisit that issue shortly but the the salient issue in this case deals with the medical opinions of the medical expert at the most recent cured it's axiomatic in this circuit they are a decision maker has to consider the opinions the evidence that favors allowance that of the claimant as well as the opinions that favor denial in this case there were many opinions it's my contention that if a witness gives one set of limitations on direct examination you know and another set of limitations on cross examination that witness given two opinions now to get down in the weeds here the first opinion of the medical expert on direct examination was that ms murphy who'd had a stroke in april two thousand and seven still suffered from it and met for equal listings twelve point zero two eleven point  four for eighteen to twenty four months the eleven point zero four wound up on mentions in the opinion and the administrative wardrobe which found that claimant murphy was now meeting a listing as of december first date and it was maybe not the exact midpoint but it was a point that was an estimate about when between the time of one piece of data medical data and the time the later one that you could identify when she'd experienced enough medical improvement to go to work and i guess i want you to clarify for me would you think this is a case where you think this is a case with evidence is so one sided that no social security judge could have come to the conclusion that this judge came to or whether this is really more procedural case where we just can't track the first basically the administrative law judge's reasoning looks directly through the magistrate judge's opinion to the  opinion because it does strike me that there's evidence kind of all over the block here and that without the explanation issue we do have a duty of deference both the first because this the state was never much by the expert but primarily the second because the evidence is all over the place especially on cross examination was an estimate that december day well on cross examination the doctor said december of two thousand and nine at one point even mentioned two thousand and ten i saw a mention of two thousand eleven a page seven ninety seven maybe up there's no data supporting those far later dates on there were examinations there were yes there were two emanations that supported that she had reduced capacity to move her fingers quickly and yes there were those were those states were the m r a showing sixty percent skin nose straight and there is some improvement she got a little visit the hospital in january of zero nine she doesn't go back until october own nine to see her primary why that compels the administrative law judge to take the latest possible date for when she's a mere obvious is all changing on the date last i'm sure she's got to show disability before december thirty first two thousand and seven but she hasn't rung yet i'm not saying she has to take the later state i'm say she has to articulate it for the review work why she picked the date she did and she did with respect to credibility it's it's a similar situation the administer of larger tests and properly articulated why she discredited claim or discredited  exactly a medical opinion but the most important opinion of limitations is coyotes and then once once her medically determin are conceded to be able to produce the symptoms that she's testifying to she's she's just a pulp there the burden shifts poured into this believe it's the scott case the b shifts to produce to the commissioner to come up with some good reasons to deny the claim and discredit clment and the kind of reasons that this court set forth and murphy one more oil war she hang thoroughly she directs his attention back to medical records he had discussed earlier in his testimony and as things went on he refined his testimony so he first said twelve to eighteen months which could have been as early as april earlier and i believe that is his most specific testimony he said i can see at this particular time i took her thirty first two thousand each she did not need a listing if you like she doesn't necessarily mean she wasn't disabled at that you've only improved from from a one to a two when you have to be an eight before you can actually work yes there's improvement that's great wonderful for the person but it's not legally relevant right now i that's fair and to that with respect to the medical records was this progress option issue which means you know if if she puts her hand out and you put a quarter in her hand and dying she can't tell the difference well she also can't feel the acceleration pedal preception is very important  being able to get around right but i believe that the main complaint was hands with you also testified about the car accelerated or right but she could drive although she said she didn't remember when she was a very short distances though right but she was able to drive but i believe that the main complaint was with respect to her hand and that you know the dr manders testify that doesn't really have a lot of impact on most locational activities because you don't simply feeling really doesn't have a lot of impact on what you can do so she could use the rapid alternating finger movements she could go like this she could use her finger as her thumb to touch the opposite fingers those tests buried sometimes they were normal sometimes it was slightly slower on the right but the main problem issue and says that's really the main concern and if you look at the range it's within one to two years that that had pretty much cleared up enough for her that she didn't need a listing in that case so yes the oldies decision certainly could have been clearer but if you look at the decision l g is focused on about eighteen months and as your honor pointed out to counsel there are medical records around that window that really can clarify when this improvement occurred where it when she had her stroke it was almost a complete blockage of her artery only by december of two thousand and eight december fifteenth right after the medical improvement it improved to sixty percent then she goes to the emergency room for like a heart of these reasons you can read enough into the decision where the l g is explicitly relying on meanders talks about improvement over time and talks about these data points within the rocker such that you can trace the l g s reasoning to this december two thousand and eight and you know she threw spec to the threads you know that it's not relevant because the light work is supported and there's really been no evidence about a sedentary artsy aside from her testimony that you know she headaches because that was really the kind of the lingering issue that she had complained of and there was some dispute about whether that was related to the stroke which i'm not sure that makes a difference because there's really no dispute she had headaches for field day with respect to moving on to the subject of symptoms just found out you know did wasn't supported by the medical records and the medical records show her own statements that are headaches from proving they happened occasionally they were relieved primarily by side but she did have few artists that she did take out a time but she reported to her physicians herself that she didn't generally need to take prescriptions because they were generally bad enough to warrant it i think is perfectly reasonable of you didn't like the side effects of the well powerful medications i have i'm not sure that's accurate because she there's a curfew references in the medical records that she didn't fill and that she did ben she said she didn't like it but they are just pacifically ask her at the hearing did you have side effects from your medications she was that there was one headache medicine that made me helps i think there's one reference that saying it she takes it during the day but it keeps up at night so she doesn't take it at night but the bulk of the records she's not really reporting side effects is fierce and said i'm not i'm not sure your honor the price think it may have caffeine in it which would careful when when they all just look at the underlying medical records and assume they could translate into for example certain level of pain you know we've said we have to pay attention to subjective reports of pain and this is a similar thing you know maybe she has underlying medical conditions in her case that just require sleeping a lot well she didn't report that to her doctors if you know she was regularly reporting on her headaches her doctors both before and after the medical improvement date i don't see any records that she was rendered better and you know the records overall said that controlled by medication she testified at hearing she mostly took exciter and that helps there is really nothing in the records that indicate they were as appointments but didn't ask why she didn't and in fact there was some information the record that showed she wanted to go somewhere closer to her house but her insurance fund approved it so that could have been the reason they all j also discredited her for taking vacations where she really felt like she laid on the beach she wasn't doing anything strenuous here didn't consider anything of that kind the issue was with respect to not taking her medications and again the records themselves showed why she didn't take the medication because her how to start severe enough to warrant it jurisprudence of this court is it is wise in that it's not such corroboration it's not required that's the terry case and the stall case that i'm sure i've cited in there i was involved in the stall case because doctors have to focus on things if they if they wrote down everything that's for let's assume that it wasn't reported to them if they had to to write down everything that was reported to them they wouldn't do anything and with respect to the landmark examinations the landmark hard evidence for picking dates when the listing sounded on this let's see october thirty first two thousand and eight there was severely  limbs are without looking at them was still moderately diminished in the right hand relative to the left and then even october fifteenth two thousand and ten the those movements were slower so that the neurologist find that you know whether you're doing this quickly or slowly isn't really of vocational significance least for the jobs at the vocational expert identified but if