because if a claimant has a long work history and work history of hard physical work that ought to count for something especially if the a l j is denying disability in part because a credibility issues someone who has demonstrated a desire to work and has proven that desire  assume that the a l j is thinking about it or considering it and several things go into this equation one is the length of the work history the difficulty of it the our jewishness of it and also whether someone has experienced injury or impairments in the past that may have interrupted work for a short of time and then they came back to work also demonstrating a consistent desire in this case also my client started her work career with there any creative killer basis in the statute for the argument you know making in the sense that it impacts credibility and the case law in the statutes are infused or would i take it the answer is no there accepted preclude white work within the confines found by yale jury i do not know for sure on that it would seem fairly central yeah  about her work history is that she's started out well behind because her cognitive limitations were quite low and that also shows desire that shows that despite analysis the case law and the regulations specify that a certain analysis needs to be done and here obesity is mentioned as as severe impairment and step two which by definition a step two means it impacts work activities she then alle day then evaluated it under step three and impacts and because of the lack of discussion it can't be meaningfully reviewed l b city can impact on a number of things and we cannot determine any logical basis for the selection of light work versus sedentary versus sit stand vs no work without a discussion somewhere  the make with regard to he's well in in it in a case a involving needs i've won a discussion of whether or not sitting aggravates knee pain and whether or not impacts those impairments we should be able to tell by reading the decision how obesity impacts other impairments or arm for a lot of her daily activities in this case it daily activities should not have been used to diminish credibility probably should have been used to enhance credibility the fact that she was trying to do anything at but the fact that she was trying to do things is also consistent with her long work history and her coming back from impairments and working also so good morning your honor smith please the court my name is meredith shocked and i represent the acting commissioner of social security in this case as you're probably aware from the record and the briefs and the shoemaker was injured in a motorcycle accident in two thousand and eight she was not disabled by that accident however and the algaes decision to that effect was supported by substantial evidence the l j reviewed the medical evidence she reviewed the medical opinions and specifically she reviewed the opinion of an issue makers treating orthopedists who when he discharged her from his treatment indicated that ms shoemaker had a five percent impairment and her right arm and he had earlier indicated that she would could go back to work but he recommended that she not pursue a job that required vigorous overhead lifting the other opinions medical opinions on the record also recognize some limitations with miss shoemakers right arm but they also do not preclude work as judge hamilton asked there are no opinions which preclude light work in this record additionally the l j sufficiently and appropriately addressed in the shoemaker's credibility she listed several reasons for that credit for her credibility to terminate and her determination that miss shoemakers allegations were not credible specifically as she discussed the medical records the medical opinions she noted that mr maker had not received any recent treatment had no i'm going treatment for her so shoulder she noted miss ms shoemakers regular activities she noted that those activities including gardening that she had been camping twelve times in the past year and that she had regular daily activities the l j also noted that ms shoemakers appearance and demeanor at hearing did not government didn't leave me a lot to rebut however in bringing up the demeanor issue that's another example of how this record cannot be meaning fully reviewed i mean demeanor is more than just the word it may be an attitude it may have a particular attitude it might be the way she was sitting in the chair maybe she was sitting upright and firm and using her hand strongly maybe maybe her demeanor was  t one that would be indicative of exaggerated pain maybe by facial expressions who knows the l j is got to make findings and put together a record that can be meaning fully reviewed and just say in the word does not not get it and it gets back to the one of the main points in the brief and that  is even if she said i reviewed the work history that would not be enough and we can't imply that they've taken into account the work history they they need to state reasons so that