i was aware of a different i thought the test was negative and it was just inconclusive because if they could rule it out that may have been the case that was my understanding it there were three bacterial different bacterial tests one was  positive in the other two were negative and that was why they weren't sure exactly what he had the bottom line is that you know jay found that he did have or history of an injury of conceptualizes so there was swelling in  discount their opinion but it is just the same i don't accept that it is it or those seven doctors the seven that we're talking about the true creators and then the other five yes your honor those are the seven opinions what  opposite of what usually is what usually meaning four and five which is where we usually is we usually hear well what it comes down to when you're talking about step two is whether it causes limitations so what we have to be able jaded has to do this way the medical evidence and determine which opinions because you have to treating doctors here who are saying that these impairments do cause significant limitations  that's our position that we l j did not provide even specific and legitimate reasons ok in there been some ways but that they had all the parts in the record where miss crawley had consistently normal findings and noted that that was inconsistent with the treating doctors recommendations based on their own moods he just counted his symptom testimony because it wasn't consistent with he courted after his they living and she also noted that mr bunting made a specific that it's our position that they were not legitimate because st of all well for example the at the activities of daily living that l j several exist with the doctor's opinions these are not but i mean traveling with his family when he did things that didn't seem consistent with the level in this very that he was claiming it is sometimes it is is there a reason why that's wrong well even his doctors noted that he was able to do some activit did stand or walk or about two hours and then it up and for about two hours in a day when he just he was not able to sustain that level of activity concentration  hour day and a full forty hour work week which is what's required for full time work if you cannot if you can do some activity but he can't sustain it on a full time basis way so if we if there were multiple reasons do if we discount one of them can does that mean we have to discount all of the ages j's opinion or get in if one opinion is sufficient one reason i should say suffices is  examination notes he had on normal memory normal coordination normal concentration normal balance normal speech cetera despite those consistently normal findings he continued to allege that he couldn't work because of poor memory  concentration confusion and cetera all of which conflicted with those normal examination findings because the record didn't substantiate his allegations the administrative law judge reasonably rejected those allegations and relied on the opinions of the five for it's his job i think he was doing hardware sales case i mean it matters in so far as the lack of any confirmation or verification of the diagnosis is i think consistent with the overall picture of the record which is that there's really no evidence that  you know standard of the wrong kind of evidence based on what condition he had but the other point i want to make is just the the math us versus shalala point which was one which is where this court said that a diagnosis of a condition does not establish disability i mean it's whatever the case is that the treatment no consistently and routinely show that the claimant was doing very well his findings were always entirely normal they were sometimes they were my old abnormalities but again mild is consistent with a non severe impairment our position is that under the substantial evidence standard that we're reviewing where they were this court is reviewing here when it looks at the l g s reading of the record and of the evidence and resolution of conflicts in the evidence a reasonable one our position is that it was it was eminently reasonable it was an entirely reasonable to conclude that with this evidence to show that the claimant have saying well i have bad memory i'm confused i have bad balance but the doctors are consistently show finding that all of that  normal it was reasonable for the l g a to say yes i'm rejecting those symptom allegations and i want to make a quick point about this misuse of certain standards that are that are an issue here and there was there was a question about situation like this and for versus all this court said that the opinions of not examining doctors that conflicts with the treating source give rise to the specific and legitimate standard so the door is closed on that that's that's been decided that the question if i could prompted by something that you just said a minute ago not even a minute ago which is that he claimed a various symptoms and that his kid treatment no struck show that that's normal and i don't know if you mean normal as in if you had this episode of meningitis that it's normal that it takes a year to get well and to recover or do you mean that if he had those very same symptoms on a permanent basis you know for more than a year out that they wouldn't rise to the level of being a severe impairment you know severe meaning significantly limits an individual's ability to perform basic work activity yes you're on the nd point that those findings were normal for anybody that was not just normal social security disability programs they understand what what it means when there is mild limitations in these these domains and that's consistent with the non secure impairment so that's the that's essentially the point they're thanking your time  rather rodriguez chase discusses that the subjective aspect of the treating doctor's opinion are also important consideration and that even if the purely objective evidence  it's our position that both the fact that he wasn't so objectively ready to go back to work and his doctor also believed that he wasn't objectively ready to go back to work both