good morning ladies and gentlemen the st case for argument this morning is lay against soul it please the court counsel this case is about a pain disorder principally the pain disorder is reflex sympathetic dystrophy syndrome also known as complex regional pain syndrome and if you don't mind i'll just refer to it as the pain disorder because repeating that is going to cut into the pain disorder was diagnosed by a pain doctor and the pain doctors disabling opinion was that claimant could only be on his feet less than one hour of eight sit less than two hours of tape only occasionally reach handle things or orfeo and could not work a full day that precludes work the pain doctor had performed eighteen procedures by the time he issued that opinion in july two thousand and fourteen overwhelming objective evidence supported his opinion from from september of two thousand and nine until march of two thousand and seventeen claim that he had thirty four procedures many of them could have resulted in paralysis or even and we submit that the administrative law judge is reduction of claimants residual functional capacity to sedentary was inadequate to reflect the pain to sort the  limitations caused by the pain disorder because it what it's a pain to sort of that resides in his nerves it really doesn't necessarily have anything to do with exertion and he testified at this hearing that he could only concentrate seventy five percent of the time which the vocational x beats record of most people but yes he could only concentrate seventy five percent of the time which precludes work a court which precluded work according to the vocational expert now the administrator would judge shows to discredit him and reject the pain doctor's opinion in favor of the the standard is met in this case the administrative law judge failed to get a medical opinion to support her reduce her assessment of limitations caused by the evidence submitted since the last state agency review which showed egnor a vacation of claimants shoulder problems  aggravation of his migraines the migraines were never even properly considered by the reviewers so the line of cases that begins with going to goes through stage says there has to been a medical opinion to support the administer of large edges opinion of what limitations were caused by the worsening o then again of course this is against the background for this claim it was a type one diabetic who had had type one diabetes since the age of eight and he had an insulin pump since the age of is there any other question i can respond to no seems not thank you the name is katherine segal i represent the commissioner of social security in this case the standard of review is substantial evidence you're reviewing whether substantial evidence supported the l g s does we were not to reweigh the evidence also the burden of producing evidence of the claimants disability is the claimant through step four that the claimant has a responsibility to produce evidence under both the act and the regulations and when he's represented by an attorney like mr horne presenting helping him present his case to the agency he's presumed to have presented his best case for disability allegations with regard to concentration she asked questions of the of the claimant about this and that the claimant said that he was off task about twenty five percent of the time on task about seventy five percent of the time and the l waived that testimony against other things in the record that showed that he did have some ability to concentrate in particular she pointed to the ability to drive his children to and from school which she felt was significant concentration requirement if you were off task driving your children to school even for a minute if you were taking a short drive you could have an accident so clearly he's his ability to concentrate doesn't appear to be as limited as the claimant is alleging the other things that she also considered and talk in deciding whether that allegation was worth giving great weight was whether it was the  to help his children his homework with their homework and also just the evidence about the mental status examinations that he got from the doctors but the doctors time and time again looked at his concentration and said it was normal and then also the claimant in an agency report said that he was able to pay attention without any problems and was able to have and follow instructions and didn't have any problem with h received for this back impairment occurred before the time that he's claiming he was disabled but the actual injury occurred in two thousand and one and then he had a procedure in in february of two thousand  basis for the home that the that the treating physician dr anwar gave for limiting the claims ability to sit in stand to a very compression fracture which presumably referred to that that one compression fracture from two thousand what she did not refer to a pain syndrome she did not refer to complex pain syndrome or aristide or any of those  conditions that the claimant is now claiming is the basis for his disabling paid she said the limits were based on a compression fracture that wasn't much of an explanation and that was one of the reasons that the l g a gave for saying i'm not going to give all those limits great weight i'm going to give it a little weight she also looked at some of the inconsistency is within that report on the face of the report one of the things that the doctor on more said about lifting was that the claim could frequently lift eleven dollars to twenty dollars pounds and only occasionally left one dollar to ten dollars pounds and that bag on its face was inconsistent doesn't seem right that someone should be able to frequently left more than and because dr anwar did not provide much of an explanation even though there was space on the form this court could reasonably expect it to consider that and to give that as a reason and which she did she gave that is opinions regarding the claim and symptoms she also considered the claim its activities and one of the more interesting activities that the claimant engaged in was racing radio controlled cars he owned and operated a j asked a lot of questions about that and the claim explained that he did this activity on friday evenings from seven dollars to eleven dollars every week during this three year period that he actually opened the race track for the players and they collected money and that he also participated in the racing with these little radio controlled boxes and the operate the racetrack and the reasons for know also he wasn't making much money and doing this and then he said it was no longer fun so at least two of the reasons are not related to a disability basis and even the last one not much fun doing it presumably because he's in pain support the decision the one of the reasons the bail chair relied upon to discredit the claimant was the failure to move fast enough with the stimulator but as i counted the stimulator was inserted four times and removed three times because of insurers the standard for harmless error is that read a reasonable trier of fact would have to be unable to find any other decision than the one that the tail j fuck and that's simply not the case thank you