our nd case for the morning is palmer versus sol i'll give counsel minute to get to the table said that he was going to have to avoid hazards he couldn't climb and he had to limit national activities that is accounting for the knob of the crack well that comes in arresting where does that come from because what we have again as i indicated he obliquely looks at a single clinic note is looked at the one from mayo fourteen we're talking about oh and he talks about the difficulty with his feet well guess what in march of thirteen the doctors saying hey we've position that the neuropathy necessarily means that there's no job that he could do that sitting won't take care of it and that avoiding situations in which the apathy might cause a fall doesn't take care of it what he doesn't account for is sustainability i mean everybody can sit to some extent unless they have some some really profound impairments the issue is can you do a competitive play and if you're up and you're down and with nobody asked him is it when you're down they ask him is here nobody asks where your feet i run counted all the time you know well i sit down when you sit where your feet are there you go sit in my recliner but where your feet at all are up well that's not no employers going to tolerate that agree oh yeah well the then that's not that's not how you communicate how you're actually spend your time nobody asked i actually asked this gentleman what do you do to help control your pac they said here is your beer and here's your medications excited for some reason nobody asked him that and when you look at the records he's got profound neuropathy very profound that was found by that if you look at the one record from dr fortan that where it's mixed with somebody else that would essentially seem like it eliminates work he's got loss of sensation loss of sustainability and where do the words come from and i think that becomes problematic when you see that the judge again mentions a single clinic now and doesn't sort out the confusion from doctor for and he just picks and chooses from doctor for  notes as he likes so we don't have that any side salad a medical basis from there he goes through and i sort of chart forth in my in my the brief where he comes up with some of the nineteen functional findings that he made seven of them are distinctly unique from the two stacy consultants and then ten nineteen there's a conflict between the two aig the two consultants one says this one says that and the judge just picks and chooses between how do you do that when you look at a single clinical record deal with unwrapping and the other ri and the other and the other record you look at this confused how do you do that i don't think you can do that that's not substantial evidence that's the judge sitting there at his womb weaving an r f c and that's not the that is the issue in this is that he out of thin air comes up with those that is the principle driving issue you also have the situation where how does he arrive at the determination that alternate between sitting or standing for thirty minutes is somehow a cure all where does that come from how do you do that when you don't look at the magical and he did not look at the medical i mean he clearly did not  right he's going to get a soda or something on an ad or the shopping activity to its limited twice week for fifteen or thirty minutes at a time you know just fish three times since june of fourteen at a hearing is held in two limitation was not adequately explained by the l j this is incorrect the engines residual functional capacity analysis expressly referenced mr palmer's hearing testimony that he did not believe he could perform a job requiring him to sit all day because extended periods of sitting would cost the speed to go down the l g also recounted mr palmer's testimony that he alleviated this numbness by getting up to increase circulation the o j further reference the fact that when initially asked administrative hearing the ve actually testified that if an additional limitation were added that would allow the appellant's to quote get up as needed and walk around for a minute or two there were still representative jobs the appellant could perform which collectively represented more than one hundred and two thousand dollars jobs in the national economy so turning back to the l g s decision as a whole your honour's this is a case in which the l g a adopted each and every specific functional  imitation opined by any medical source on the record in addition the l g actually adopted additional functional limitations over and above what any medical source had put forth w did not actually specify during the hearing but again the v a did testify that even if an additional imitation were added and it wasn't just the thirty minute intervals if the if the hypothetical individual were able to get up as needed things but also you know as you mentioned before the restriction from climbing ladders or scaffold other postural activities including balancing to only occasional there was instruction from hazards so there were many functional limitations  a restriction to simple and repetitive tax with little to no change in workplace activities and that was in order to address the accounts testimony at the hearing that his fatigue and pain would cause him to have trouble sometimes being on task  so that again is tied to this the appellant's subjective allegations the l g credited that and included this limitation to address it and i will emphasize to that in this case there is no mental impairment alleged appellant did not see mental health professionals no one is saying that he has an objective problem with attention and concentration but the l j at this out of an abundance of caution to make sure that it was accommodated has the strength referenced one clinical note and that's simply not true the l g a has referenced many pieces of evidence in the record including the consultation examination by dr chopra and other findings throughout the  records so it is not based on one examination quiting it is really an examination of the longitudinal record that he relied upon here thank you unless your owners have any further questions we would ask that you a somehow satisfactory there is no time limit from the claimant's testimony is how long you can do any of these particular activities does not ask again it's created at all out of whole cloth and doing that's it's that's not that is harm that's not harmless  or multiplications does not equate to the ability to do that throughout the day because of the onset of pain and as individual clearly has that their duties on young very powerful medications for that so that has that's not a counter for those of the those are the biggest issues that i have is that that needs to be accountable as pain is it's not a strike case so thank thank you counsel of the case is taken under advisement