morning as your honour's are quite well where this is an appeal of a social security administration determination that ms flinger was not disabled the final decision which is that which is subject to dish will review is a decision categories with respect to what those are all about all but one of the herbs relates to this severity of mr planers impairments and opinions that relate to that as well as her if i may not not trying to avoid answering your question i would like to try to do point out two different kinds of her sure the the one is with respect to the weight given to treating physician opinion and i would suggest that this case is relatively relatively quaint finally by the administrative law judge this is a gal for twenty years who did work in the able jade to determined that she was not capable of returning to that kind of work that she had performed for two different three different jobs actually that she had performed for for more than twenty different twenty years   is the issue of the claimants credibility or six doctors who offered opinions concerning ms flingers problems here indicated that she was being credible with respect to that pain point she was taking nine different prescribed medications all of which had been prescribed there is absolutely not a scintilla of evidence in this case that she was taking her medications in any weight other than as prescribed so when they refer to her having opiate issues they were referring to two medication which she had been taking on a prescribed basis and they wanted her to stop they recommended a content of combine detox program and getting iran to rely on on her opiate problem as the basis for your discrediting her your honor in my pain she did in substantial part much more importantly and here's the other issue that i hadn't gotten to yet the ale jay with not one scintilla not one iota not any evidence whatsoever in support of this finding found  was dependent upon marijuana there is no evidence in this record whatsoever that she has ever used marijuana let little and she was dependent i think and if i understand the government's briefing properly they have not contested they aren't contesting that this was her the issue then becomes is that harmless or for an administrative law judge to find that it claimant whose credibility is the crux of this case  in so many ways but the credibility in her description of the severity of her pain it's the crux of this case and when the ale jay says she has a marijuana dependence that she is dependent law with no evidence whatsoever to support this in her decision say she's dependent upon and has a marijuana dependency issue i'm just asking this court to consider that fact it's not reasonably should not reasonably can be construed as harmless or assists that i find here more as he states on page nine he also assessed the climate this is talking about dr robertson with opioid dependence not marijuana dependence deconditioning deconditioning which would arise from this kind of dependence on drugs deactivation which would go along with that and disability opioid dependence was an a determination by one doctor that she was taking an inappropriate amount of medication that had been prescribed by another doctor but i was so want to point out that the misleader totally agreed it's  nine different medications and try to get on if there were one or two other medications that would not be so problematic but the i agreed that there are all those diagnoses in there judge but there's also this finding that she was dependent upon marijuana and either we put blinders with respect to that just out of nowhere alba blew off the wall i don't mean to be just respectful but when the a l j says with no evidence whatsoever she's dependent upon marijuana when it's a felony a federal felony we're talking about a federal program here to be using marijuana to say surely we're confident that that was in consequential to the finding of non disability and if there is substantial evidence even if we were to conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the adverse credibility finding but there may be some problem with the way in which the l g a treated the the treating physicians opinions what do they get you out of they are two separate things  credit as true doctrine where you credit it can be applied in two different areas one is with respect to the opinions of treating physicians if they are determined if it she termed it they should be credited as true then  in support of a relief of a reversal of the decision and immediate payment of benefits separate from that possibility is the determination that the claimants testimony should be credited as true and that too can be a basis for the relief of in reversal and immediate payment of benefits so where would the relief that we're seeking here perhaps should have said this of the else it is reversal of the unfavorable decision we're asking the courts to consider reversal with immediate payment of benefits getting there by way of the creditor true doctrine either by way of the treating physician opinion or  alternatively re mending if for no other reason then this issue of there is clearly or you're the judges but i don't see how it can be fairly we're submitting that it should not be for fairly held there can be fairly held that accusing someone finding that someone is dependent upon a schedule one illegal federally illegal drug is ok thank you thank you oh give you a minute for rebuttal thank you bothwell correctly indicated sort of the two heads of the argument which of the credibility analysis in the medical opinion analysis and i think that those are in general pretty routine social security disability case matters that she was the victim of a botched surgery and that was bad however the evidence that you're looking for i think is the evidence that the j pointed to her examining physician setting aside the state agency physicians but her examine her one of her examining ye were are you soley relying upon contrary evidence but examining but not treating doctors were solely relying on the examining doctors are ok with regard to the medical evidence and that would be dr robertson to adam berry and priors decision those are the records that we think they pointed to that fairly contradict those records what is the object of medical evidence in this case that she has a medical problem consistent with their symptoms the fact i think the fact your honor that she did go through this botched surgery in march well maybe not botched but she went through this surgery in march of two thousand and twelve that dr adam berry was called in to complete because the doctor who started it was not able to complete it for whatever reason and since that time she has had this to some degree this right asia that is consistent with some degree of limitation and i'm trying to understand what test was done what radiography was done what was done to us stab was performed here obviously under very adverse circumstances but the surgery that docked out a very performed as a standard surgery with the and it's unclear to me what is the increase morbidity as a result of that and what is the basis for determining that in this case based on the something other than the complaints of pain they well that's just it your honor it's kind of unclear to me to i my my reading and my reading it's not really an issue but my reading of the record is that dr adam berry is crediting her complaints of pain to the degree that she asserts them and believes that because she went through a set of circumstances with this surgery that could have caused them that that he also had a medical opinion as well yes no right your honor i think that's right now i think that jay's analysis also includes the opinion of the examining physician dr robertson who said that he would anticipate that she c improve to at least a sedentary to light level of exertion and he were lying all along they proved twenty thirteen nerve conduction study which shows no evidence of purple tone syndrome an absence of objective medical evidence to explain her chronic pain so getting back to judge wells question and this is why just by as i think that doctor out of barry is looking at it and you know i'm mr bothwell have the opportunity to correct my characterization robertson and dr moore the psychologist but dr adam various opinion seems to be equivocal in that as late as october of thirteen he says there's no objective evidence and i don't i don't i'm trying to walk the line here because i don't want to mischaracterize what dr out of barry's position is he does believe his patients ok that is clear but at the same point in october of thirteen which is pretty near the end of the record because the record here really only extends from march of two thousand and twelve through the winner of two thousand and thirteen he said there's no evidence no objective evidence of the of the ridiculous but the and i think that was why he referred her to the the pain clinic with respect to the the credibility of the claims it's a pretty simple it's a pretty ordinary in social security disability case  disabling pain of right arm for a left hand dominant person by the way and looks at some for activities of daily living and says the objective evidence  not a credibility factor in itself but it is a factor in evaluating the objective medical evidence in that it impacts the impacts whether get to the i want to get in there is you know there's this i didn't think about this when i was looking at the case but isn't there another like fifth step or six step when alcohol addiction or you look at the claimant first in material part by drug and alcohol addiction then the ael j goes through the analysis finds that person disabled and then goes back and says would they be disabled but for their drug and alcohol addiction and so there's it's a double analysis first they're disabled second and we go back and look at it again but that does not apply to cases like this where the l j says in the first instance even including the effects of opioids the person is not disabled so this is not one of those cases of that makes sense ok yes and i just want to say briefly with regard to the citation of marijuana because i think that's important and that was an error but that's a harmless error the reason it is a harmless  is because that's cited one time mistakenly at page seventy one of the record which is page three of the decision and never mentioned again page basically pages six through nine of the ministry of decision are where the a l j goes through the reasoning behind the objective medical evidence finding in the credit on the credibility finding and but it is not cited to in the actual reasoning that's developed later in the decision for discrediting her correct that's what i thought i read the way i read it not cited too as a basis for the credibility finding and that's why it is an error minute there to make any rebuttal on any of the points raised by council yes yes or thank you i would like to follow up on with your honor's question with respect to whether there was any evidence to support of it than her self apart are it isn't reasonable that miss planers impairments can reasonably be expected to produce the event individual's pain or symptoms answers yes this is all cited on page twenty three of my memorandum  answered the exact same question yes to her her problems could reasonably be expected to cause the symptoms of pain same answer from dr kendrick who testified at the hearing when he was the first he noted the turbo pain heat that's his word turbo pain this woman has been suffering from since this past surgery the judge then asked dr kendrick he said it was terrible pain could could her terrible pain be reasonably caused by object of signs and symptoms of medical problems yet she has the doctor said yes this isn't a case just based upon subjective symptoms and just returning begins to this issue if we were as i say marijuana is in the same classification as for example her when it was the just to throw out there in a decision this person is dependent upon her one but that doesn't make any difference to my decision is so i think without the judge saying i didn't rely upon that all the judge didn't say i did not rely upon that of all if for no other reason i think this case should be reminded for the question i have a question about something you mentioned earlier you said in the deborah twenty years yes there was the basis of that the basis of that is the testimony of the vocational expert at the hearing when he was asked by the judge to describe her past jobs and his players past jobs that she taught for twenty plus years there was  an assistant accounting position a an inventory control clerk position and something else he just bribed all three jobs as what they call sedentary which is my kind of shop sit on your set all day  the jobs which he identified in response to the judge's question well if a person had this other physical capacity or the jobs that person could do they're called light point being obvious of turns but light work is regarded as more physically demanding than sedentary all three of the jobs which this judge said is plain or could do but she could not return to any of her past jobs according to the judge and we agree with that finding are in the light category they are more physically demanding than the jobs ms fleener had for twenty plus years before she developed these other health problems ok thank you ok thank you thank