opens opinion that mr anderson would be limited to two hours of standing and walking in an eight hour workday this limitation is pivotal in this case as it would lead to inclusion that mr anderson was limited to no more than century of work under the regulations this is key because the only job that the initiative rogers found the mistress could perform was the job of journalist which is performed at the right level so a limitation to sedentary work would likely eliminate this job if the sequential evaluation process proceeded to step five the medical vocational guidelines would apply and mr anderson would be found to say well based on his age the limitations of sedentary work and possibly lack of transferable skills the reason we can ask repayment of benefits in this case though is that these issues were developed at the hearing the they did not pose this hypothetical question without limitation to the vocational consultants we don't know for sure that the journalist i put that question that there was no question about the limitation of two hours of standing of walking on the impact on the ability to perform the job of a journalist it strikes me that the record here what's most concerning to me is that there was apparently no consideration of his when i thought he was most stressing which is his actual psoriasis and the fact that it was bleeding in there was painful and that he really couldn't go out seemingly he base it on nurse bushnell's suggestion that mr anderson not engage and pull on standing so if we take that he will use that as the basis then dr open has translated this which disabling in mr anderson's mind and he made it crystal clear and then he was just terribly frustrated he said and i bring you all the bloody clothes this man has under control bleeding or unpredictable bleeding for extended periods he has trouble taking a shower because of the bleeding i mean for him in his own mind to finally be a journalist and i'm going to go out and worry about bleeding all over the place because of my skin condition that itself is going to make we make my job very difficult or impossible and yet somehow we keep trying about how long he can stand the reason i chose to focus on focusing on that is because the information about the bleeding ma'am and that was i mention that my final argument where's the duty to develop just even reading the transcript we can sense mr anderson's frustration at the process but he was never able to put any of these concerns into something that would be that we could review for transfer of building into a vocational setting and he's saying that he takes a long time but if you know it takes you two hours to shower in the morning how do you just your schedule so you can still make it to work because we don't have enough evidence here to or the info record is not developed sufficiently to find him disabled on the record i focused on the legal errors that would mandate  remand with representation and further development the record we could cure these kind of errors so that was why am i focusing on more nuanced issue of the two hours because that argument was also that the record wasn't adequate  yes ma'am and he was he did not get representation until he actually had to get several extensions of time just to find a representative before the different district court i'm not sure any professional help in his case and to circle back to the doctor our prince pinion dr open is the only source who reviewed the entire few moments and the ability to sustain activity over an eight hour workday so that does not the these findings were not substantial evidence supporting the rejection this opinion of the other two factors involved mr anderson's reports that he was able to drive and able to shop driving has no bearing on the ability to stand or walk a sedentary activity wholly consistent with dr evans opinion shopping are standing and walking so the reason is that the michigan law judge gave for rejecting this particular limitation did not satisfy the legal standard for reviewing the medical evidence and then  dr engines pinion is likely conservative measure of mr anderson and pain because the record itself is predominantly objective findings which only measure part of the impact of an individual for i'm forced to rely on him because that's the only functional assessment we have in the in the record simply this may go to the question of development of the records of the doctor doesn't see the doctor  r on the telephone the doctor does not have color photographs and the doctor thinks he's a woman initially yes so and that was another element that i think started mr ancients downhill spiral going the hearing but if we take it as measured rogers's typically will rely on station she would be us who not only never meet the individual they are never cross examined and they typically see the file within the st six or eight months after the claim is filed and there's always subsequent development so we don't hear from the government you've got a little bit of time but rather than use it all up now why don't we hear from the government then you have a chance to respond please the court counsel lars nelson on behalf of the commissioner your honour's i would just jump right into the issue of disabling psoriasis and whether the a l j properly considered that i g right she actually makes conflicting statements i'd like to focus the court's attention to the very next sentence below because i think that's key to wrapping up the issue of the psoriasis it says overall there is no evidence of suspicious me suspicious lesion says isn't that cancer but has nothing to do is complain has nothing to do with his complaint he's not saying it's cancer easing he has psoriasis if you look at the the listings pertaining to psoriasis that's mentioned in the there's only one record from dr dr armstrong that notes lesions suspicious or otherwise and that's an almost a four year span of records for the relevant period so i mean the l j has the record before him which her which consisted of all of the treatment notes from the nurse practitioner which was a primary treatment provider as well busy as the dermatologist doctor's armstrong and  and that is that five hundred and forty eight and at the hearing he testified that he had embryo in his refrigerator says he believes a lot of you for that it's not that he's a total liar it's just that the l j was reviewing the record before her  it would have to translate in some vocational manner i'm not sure how it walking around him as he described it which is bleeding so much that it went through your clothes routinely that would be a problem that was his opinion just doesn't deal once the claimant just is most vivid chest monye and in his written report is about that he reports it in this one paragraph that he said it but then he just and he walks in and says i want to show you these rags when what destroyed my clothes are how bloody they are and i mean for good reason i guess he doesn't want to see the blood but he doesn't deal with it he doesn't say anywhere it's true or it isn't true or it doesn't matter because it wouldn't be disabling he just says nothing about it well your honor i would disagree with that when the l j disagree with that he didn't say anything about it and i would i would disagree where the  considers open sores and bleeding and summarizing the subjective complaints right and then discusses the question of lesions all the way through and then turns to the claim that psoriasis is expensive so it's  ignalina by the l j s i'm twenty four and it is expensive but there's stability with admiral and then there's no suspicious lesions and then he turns also to the question of of pain and the claimants pain was fully addressed percocet in this case to the point where the claimant would say i take two purposed that's in the morning and i work and then i take one to two in the afternoon and i continue working is it accurate to say that when the vocational as well as bleeding then the next two days later overall there's no evidence of suspiciously and in the record well no evidence that's weird because there's clear evidence of not giving it to the locational expert well your honor i would direct this court to just two points he was sent for a counsel to the of examination with dr meinhardt who looked at the pictures that the claimant brought in and to decide whether it's true or is true and it's not subject when it's not made as an objective finding by a medical source it is it becomes us just i'm just reading dr mike he says leading he testifies that there's that there's a leading but then doesn't deal with it and for that your honor i would point to dr alford who said he relied on dr mind hart's opinion in rendering his dr mind heart does not incorporate any special limitations related to bleeding and dr mind heart and i'm sorry dr alford and dr smith's opinion overlap and all but the issue of two hours of standing and i would refer the court to the briefing on why the it that limitation was psoriatic arthritis so whether or not the psoriasis itself was disabling when you can factor the frustration that causes the all the bleeding and such in with the other impairments that's what renders anderson unable to sustain work activity the administrative law judge didn't actually a true use any of the findings that she summarized to discount any specific allegations by mr anderson rather she summarize them said for this reason i find he's not credible and then moved on to a few other reasons and your summary is not enough to count as a discounting of the allegations it has to be specific testimony undermined by specific