conclusion dale j made two errors that weren't reversed and remanded this case first dale j's credibility determination is patently wrong and second they'll jay's residual functional capacity assessment is not supported by substantial evidence they credibility determination is patently wrong for various reasons first they'll take cannot accurately assess mr hillocks credibility pertaining to his complaints of shooting pain down his neck and arms without addressing the july two thousand and nine m r i of a cervical spine three to five runners in fact according to the exact words avail james decision the evidence does not show the claim has nerve or compression with particular apathy however this m r i obviously shows he has moderate c seven nerve compression and there is no mention raised in the district court yes your honor in fact and are not be asked to they kind of deal with these issues various issues a combination of what is your shirt with what wasn't raised in the district court know the m r i itself was not wrist what was raised was that the failed to adequately consider all factors in deciding whether you could perform work and our assessment is that this would significantly affect his ability to perform his work as a correctional treatment specialists ok so that your theory on waiver is that that blanket assertion the l j made a mistake yes your honor is enough to preserve any mistakes well this is only one of our arguments your honor but our position is the combination of issues as a whole preclude his ability to do this for so with this issue regarding the riddick op the similar to isn't going to be called an l j did not use the report of the results the m r i is an aid in evaluating the plaintiff's testimony and therefore the credibility terminations patently wrong but there are two other issues regarding the credibility determination your honor in coming to this credibility assessment they'll jail so selectively highlighted evidence they'll jay mentions orthopedic specialist dr brant johnson's name one time seniors treat shoulders so quite literally his shoulders are making a great evening cracking noise throughout range of motion furthermore the l j selectively highlights mr mahela statements regarding his activities of daily living in the way they  characterized as mr mchale exceeded all reports you would think he has normally functioning shoulders that can perform any type of sedentary work however a full review of the seven shows is not the case first day o j concluded he was able to sit while watching television and using the computer yet convenient excludes the rest of his response as long as i can tolerate right shoulder starts nerve pain minutes after getting settled and set up they'll do a stated use able to use automobile frequently but upon further examination of his response includes however it is very difficult and painful for me to most driving in searing motions wife always drives when i don't have to drive alone they'll jail so stated mr hale it was able to attend to his personal needs but failed to discuss his comments including use the toilet reaching for toilet paper to the side is painful to corroborate this is search and at that hearing mr mahela stated i don't want to get nasty but wiping after you go to the bathroom just putting on socks my wife asked you those types of things for me mr  mahela further explained he has a difficult time for most basic activities such as brushing his teeth because the paint used down his arms and into his wrists and hands the final reason the credibility determination is patently wrong is because she fails to address relevant evidence that precludes this court from adequately reviewing her analysis prior to his hearing mr hale it filed an s s a statement of claim and or other person to explain the issue of personal training in his record in the state minister it mchale explained that since he had worked from the age of fifteen up  until his time of disability he was embarrassed to list themselves unemployed on forms including physicians prior to the times a disability hit informally helped friends weight lift so he told people he was a personal trainer and i quote soley to hide a sense of shame i felt because i could not work without an adequate explanation is it your position that the l j was required to accept that explanation our position is that the ala j is required to draw a logical bridge between the evidence of their conclusion and if they're going to use disability benefits you know that's reasonable your honor i'm one of the issues that he's also depressed he's been prescribed brute wellbutrin ever since two thousand and five on he was a juvenile detention counselor between one nine hundred ninety and two thousand then he worked gnc for a short amount of time and then he worked at vitamins plus he had to stop working at vitamins plus because he couldn't do the stocking of the shelves at the shoulders and when the not attorney representative further question about it he said it was a shoulder pain he just couldn't put the stuff on the shelves anymore so i guess a person who is depressed versus a person is not depressed make coq differently with these types of issues always residual function capacity assessment is not supported by substantial evidence which is defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion the commissioner will tell you any of these errors are harmless because we have state physician dr smith  medical file and came to the conclusion mr hayward can perform sedentary work with some limitations however this is search is problematic twofold one dr smith did not review orthopedic specialist dr johnson treatment note stating he needs bilateral sho replacement surgery and two they'll g s r c assessment regarding the shoulder limitations is far less restrictive than that set out by dr smith himself it takes a very close reading the terminology but the ala j concludes he can occasionally reach to or above his shoulder level bilaterally occasionally as defined in the regulations as up to one third of the work day however dr smith concluded mr hale is limiting reaching in all directions to just one third of the work day so just to clarify dr smith was let me in any type of reaching whereas the l j only limit is reaching at children level or above this has serious implications for jobs that include clerical tasks such as opening drawers filing paperwork or even grabbing a pen as already mentioned dr smith concluded this more restricted r f c even without mentioning dr johnson statement that he needed bilateral shoulder replacement surgery ironically the elegy states  good morning your honor is my name is katherine segal i represent the commissioner so security in this case i'd like to start out with with the said terry work capacity that the l d s says they l j here found a reduced range of sedentary capacity based on the only opinion that was rendered regarding the claim is condition joining the relevant insured period here that's an important distinction because the claimant's insurance status expired in december two thousand and ten and the  the court has has said that evidence showing a disability must be from the period at issue must relate to the claimants condition during the period at issue and ensure that ends in december two thousand and ten there aren't any treating physicians place restrictions on the claimants capacity during the relevant insured period the only r f c we have is from dr smith and the l g adopted all the restrictions that dr smith set forth  dr smith gave a good explanation of what he considered when he was assessing those restrictions and one of the things you consider was the m r i findings from july of two thousand and nine and the claimant says that the the l g did not specifically address that evidence but by adopting the restrictions from dr smith b l j here in essence promenaded any restrictions that would have been he had raised them they don't have merit the credibility issue in particular is quite compelling in this case as you noted the claimant told his doctors throughout two thousand and eight and two thousand and nine on multiple occasions that he was working as a fitness trainer at a fitness america was very specific statements to his doctors about working as a fitness trainer and in fact when the clinic was talking to dr brant johnson about soda shoulder surgery he opted not to have shortened shoulder surgery because the doctor suggested that he would have to stop we lifting if he'd had if you underwent so shoulder surgery  j question the claimant at length about this to clarify what his statements were to his doctors so this wasn't something that she just popped into the decision without grappling with that this evidence because on the one hand he told his doctors that he was working at fitness america as a as a personal trainer on the other hand he's been he claimed at the hearing that he did not work as a personal trainer had never worked as a personal trainer  and didn't even know what personal trainer did so that the day we've these two very conflicting statements and it understandably colored her impression of whether this claimant was telling the truth in general about his disability and that was a reasonable thing to do the j here question the claimant why he would claim that he was doing such a rigorous job why you know if he was going to tell his doctors that he was was working because he was embarrassed to be unemployed why didn't he suggest a job that didn't require so much rigorous activity such as like someone who's sitting at a desk and not moving their arms around but the claimant said that he had a history of being a weightlifter and  that it seemed you know plausible that he could have worked as a personal trainer he also said that a personal trainer doesn't actually do much that he just stands with a notepad while the client does the the the lifting and work and when the l g challenge him about bat that about spotting a clean client with weights he said that he didn't know anything about what a personal trainer actually did because he'd never done it now ironically in his brief the claimant says that the erred by considering another statement that the claimant made to the agency about being an informal personal trainer with his friends that he he made early on to the agency and this rather seems to confirm the fact that he's lying about hi training job in one way or another and it would be would fit right with the credibility finding that the l t now the be the l j didn't just rely on that one particular thing that one big lie from the claimant in assessing credibility she also considered things like objective findings which during the relevant insurer period are normal but just normal neurological findings and and the doctors who treated the claimant didn't find any basis for restricting his capacity in any way and that's compelling evidence of not being disabled and it conflicts with what the claimant was claiming about being disabled by his impairment s the other thing that she considered she contrasted the different reports about his activities and on the one hand when she first apply for benefits and filled out agency reports he talked about doing activities with some plain but he was still able to do the activities whereas at the time of the hearing which is about eighteen months after his insurance she has expired he was at a point where he was much more restricted so she weighed that evidence and  d that the the evidence that was more contemporaneous to the period it issue was more compelling evidence that he was not to say the disabled  the other thing that the l g considered was that none of the doctors record any side effects from his medications and and of course the most important was just that not being limited by any of his doctors during the relevance or period up to one third of the date reaching in all directions not at shoulder level or above which as i mentioned before makes a huge difference if you're trying to do a clinical test sitting down boiled down in one way or another that the ailed you failed to consider the impact of all of this impairments taken together and given that wavers a flexible doctrine he hopes that it would be applied in this case in a way to prevent injustice and give  look at his case and finally the judge mentions that the objective findings do not support his complaints of disability however some notes from dr brett johnson he states he was concerned about such severe osteoarthritis at such a young