i we're here because we have a highly cursory district court decision that affirmed the final agency decision and so turning attention to the final agency decision in the arguments that we made we want to focus on the residual functional capacity of course following step three and the decision on the part of the agency here to to discount heavily the treating physician d borman in the course of doing so the decision also discounted the agency's own consultation examiners so in our contentions we had of course the major one the residual functional capacity and the discounting of the treating physician the credibility assessment which is going to be related to that because both of those focus heavily on the activities of daily living there were relied on in the agency decision when the activities of a living themselves are not supported by substantial evidence the residual functional capacity is not supported by substantial evidence either we'll see if we focus on that which was the great focus here by the agency the the greatest activities that were cited and were lied on by the agency against miss peterson had to do with activities that she spoke of with doctors  also or doctors also are is the agency's expert he opened to disabling impairments he opined that this peterson now because of the reasons extensive reasons in the detail narrative that were living and he did not regard them as in hearing his assessment that she would be disabled put aside the agency's expert opinion for citing let's just assume i don't think there's any contest that those activities city recounts are ones because of these facts but he does so fairly cursorily rate could have done so i mean away over here because of a procedural claim which is to say that the a r j didn't sufficiently justify his rejection of the treating physicians claim to want to send it back to him to say if you're going to reject it you need to be do better than this or are you contending that he couldn't possibly have rejected it given the evidence in this case both because if this court does not find as we argue that you should be found disabled based on dr warman's opinion and doctors also offer opinion then you should at least fin you know i didn't do a good job last time so let me focus on a particular activity in described why that that has made or f c different than the one i came up with before and if that's what you decide to do that is you conclude after reviewing all of this and  briefs here that you want to find more and articulation error here rather than that she should be found disabled based on doctor boardman's opinion and doctors all stores then it should be made clear to the agency that it if it is going to psychologically and gave a comprehensive report to give some sort of context what do you make of these activities well doctors or stores did not find that those activities precluded her finding  disability or its recommendation that she is not now ready for employment and he goes into extensive detail as to why she is not based on her history she's been under treatment for years a lot of her symptomology has has simply not been addressed partly because i'm sure she didn't know that she was impaired to the extent that he found but and then the additional reason that was dispute as to how much she did exercise why she walking a mile or she able only to walk a block it's unclear from this doctor's oldster was a psych to the invalidity of discounting dr borman as well because when the l jr when the agency relies on claimant activities as a basis for discounting or with respect to dr bormann the activities are referring to are the ones your claim is that the agency erred in discounting dr bormann his opinion that as a physical matter she could perform certain functions true because it is reason that he had it because he would because the agency relied on the the statements given to doctors or store but i'm still having a difficult to judge fisher sort of thing here's what he's what doctors will store only if opinion is psychological is it not true but the reason that he discounted warman is that the first one is not consistent with the objective tical evidence the objective medical evidence includes the mental all of it it's by definition the mental evidence as well as a physical is part of what is regarded as the objective medical of it's is entirely record here and we're saying it is consistent with that ok i'd like to well i don't have much time to give him an a for rebuttal let's let's hear from the government could we just go for a minute i just want to understand what the l j did with respect to dr bormann the treating physician yet so the end of his of the end of the l g is opinion he says the l j says this opinion is given little weight and is not consistent with the objective medical evidence and the claimant fictive it is that's all we sense that is correct and the l g did not specifically you offer a lot of good reasons i mean you offer some reasons to help to help the l j but you know that there aren't big reasons given post hoc argument here because he did discuss in detail all the medical evidence that contradicted dr dormans opinion is not required under our case will at least when dealing with the opinion of a treating physician to be more specific about why he rejects the ted opinion we have a somebody who's treated this woman over a period of time whose conclusion is that she has opinion is that she's not able to work in the air jay says i reject it because it not consistent with the medical evidence and you do a fine job and the commissioner does almost as good a job but not as good as you say well here's what he should have said but he didn't and it isn't that that's not that's my i think it's that's that be pretty easy case to review because we would say the other side would put an expert in to say would normally doesn't show it we don't know i went basis you see as you say there's lots of stuff in the record it's not indicative of of might have articulated a decision coming up with this or f c that perhaps we don't know what we just don't know what is so it's a procedural side i'm most concerned with now whether or not there's so efficient evidence from the record from which a limited decision could have talk or is it just that we're supposed to infer from steady gait that you care i think it's a reasonable inference that that that not having normal gait and intact sensation and really intact muscle rate it's not clear to me whether or not that would be inconsistent to a normal paper so you can do it but you couldn't do it for more than two hours i i'm not sure and that's not an thank your honor for the opportunity to rebut the first question what do we do with that and the commissioner said that this is not post hoc rationalization it is unless the commissioner can show that the explanations that he offered in the commissioner's brief fit within footnotes riya where we versus the commissioner doubly are easy versus the commissioner but no three speaks about whether where there is not close talk rationalization where there is simply an expansion on ago with mr lu these these pair of these functional limitations upon by dr bormann our work preclude at that transcript their excerpt for ninety nine in terms of the inability to walk for a certain distance and the need to take so many breaks and so forth there was also the question about why the why should the agency get another shot it should not here because dr boardman's opinion is work reclusive doctors rules course opinions work because if you look at the