security administration purposes of the security is or is a decision reserved to the commissioner and then it goes on to consider whether the proper issues about which said that and and joyce pastor's decision i think is right on point the th circuit has never addressed judge foster's decision and it went when they held it was a decision reserved for the commissioner that was just an error error that should not have ruled that and yes if they had not said that they might have says part of the decision on other grounds you're correct but they still relied upon that holding and just foster said that remark is imprecise regulation says that a statement by medical sources you're disabled or unable does not mean that you would be termed as you're disabled that's not the same as saying such a statement is proper and therefore to be ignored and we asked this court to embrace judge pastor's decision and remained the case for it now holding that the dinar was improperly denied because it was because it was because it was held be an issue reserved for the commissioner language is a political and when it's not a political and i would say it is a pleasurable when when a medical source just says this is not disabled however it's not a political when they have a thorough r as i look at that it says medical sources opinions on issues reserved for the commissioner said that to me it may be the better reading that is that the commission actually does ultimately consider the evidence and and make that decision what medical opinion if you're disabled or unable to work does not mean it will determine if you're disabled so if the regulations says we were not rely upon that statement instead we will look at the whole evidence but in this case ok one more one more point ok the plaintiff in this case is no longer insured he's not eligible for s s i so his receiving benefits is depend upon when in this case to deliver circuit court my name is marcus johns and i appear on behalf of the commissioner of social security as an initial matter this court should not follow or adopt bjornson and in the circuit  well this opinion is reserved to the commissioner and so i don't have to consider it under the regs the the a o j and the commissioner is to consider all of the evidence and as judge posner pointed disabled but by the same token it doesn't mean that we're not going to determine that you're disabled and past the role of the judge in the ministry of law and judge and i think the disconnect between what court should not rely on that case to decide this to decide this if i may i would like to say that the that the court should affirm the commissioner's final decision on on really two grounds one is procedur gave the opinion evidence putting dr kronk's opinion and dr herrera's but he did not challenge the a l j statement that the opinions were on issues reserved to the commissioner and he did not argue issue mr walker again what would have you believe that the algae simply disregarded dr crompton dr harris opinion because they were on an issue reserved for the commissioner but again that is not what happened yes the a l j did state that but the l j also considered the opinions and explain why he gave those little why he gave those opinions little weight substantial evidence supports those reasons this court should affirm i note that pla mr walker's worker's comp case dr cronk said he's not capable of working well as as chief judge pointed out again the commission her is tasked with that ultimate decision of individual is unable to perform their past work something that is actually something that the commissioner would agree that is that's absolutely correct george the judge judge the the the a limited this individual to sedentary work and so it's clear that he had difficulties he could not the there was another doctor dr reynolds i believe it was exactly judge you are correct you are correct with regard to you know mr crooks opinion the o j went on and explained why it was not consistent with the medical evidence and he gave he gave good reasons we can go into those if if if you'd like and then turning to turning to dr herrera's opinion not here here we the other thing he pointed out was that dr herrera talked about plaintiffs have and side effects that would be you know disabling side effects but the a l j noted that plaintiff own report to  dr herrera said i don't have any side effects so there's inconsistency between doctor herrera's opinion the statements of the mr walker to his doctor and so all these are reference to what is reserved at the commissioner did not mean that the administrative law judge failed to consider all of their opinions and went on to explain how those  to just touch on one last argument that plaintiff made again we we argue that he that he waived this because in raise it below but they all day did not substitute his judgment for dr herrera and given that opinion little weight is this court well knows the a l j is responsible for determining claimants r f c based on all the evidence and l j does not substitute his judgment for that of a doctor by carrying out his  medical findings and they o j did not act in any way like a doctor rather a o j acted like a judge weighed the evidence considered the the law and the facts with the regulations and made the decision so in conclusion and i have got some time but in conclusion discord should not entertain arguments mr walker did not make below nevertheless substantial