can return to half of what he previously did stuff for and so the first remedy i would ask is that the court send this case back with instructions to the l j that you can't find it he can perform half of it of his previous droughts step four you have to go step five and determine whether there are significant numbers of jobs in the national economy such claim can perform ok so the fact that he was is an issue at step four as the supreme court recently held in the thomas case you know at step four even have to prove that the job exists at all and in the  record is replete with evidence that this man's brain perception is greatly magnified by his psychological status individual does not showing pattern of using his pain for personal gain and when you combine that statement with other statements in the record to the effect that physical findings and the objective physical findings don't take into account the whole picture because as dr anderson said the major portion more than half of it is psychologically based so so when you record that at no point during that hearing could he possibly have sat for more than about thirty or forty minutes there was a also said that he testified he couldn't sit for longer then i  visionary would appreciate certainly the native credibility determination to not just rely on issues that are related to mr no one's perception of pain are physical tests that are minister for instance if a patient claims low back pain and only low back pain the doctor may push on the patient's head and ask if that hurts and apparently physiologically there is no way that for applying pressure of the top of the head would hurt the lower back and in mr nolan's brief he talks about how dr waddell has disagreed with the application of his signs and whether or not they really undermine credibility in all cases but we have in this case is that physicians practicing applied them and drew conclusions from  wasn't titled to utilize those physicians professional opinions regardless of what other debates may be going on in the literature in addition dr clare anderson who examined claimants  perception of of how it is that he's in pain it has to do with his demonstrated abilities and therefore his credibility independent of the existence of any psychological limitations and i'd claiming that he was disabled and after two months of treatment dr morel noted significantly improved some out of form behavior in other words the sonata form behavior though i have pain and i don't i think i have pain and in the fact that i don't have pain it's all in my head and it's a legitimate thing i'm telling you that i think i have pain that behavior had improved and by two thousand after the allegations that he was disabled he had demonstrated that he had learned skills from management of his pain that is management of this adjustment disorder and the l g a spine it was a non severe impairment did not cause more than minimal work related limitations is not an issue so mr nolan's latest arguments about the pain perception greatly magnified was greatly magnified by mr owen psychological status is really the past relevant work issue is incorrect and should not be upheld first of all the supreme court told us in thomas that it's a useful workable effective and efficient proxy for the stuff i've determination as perform work in the national economy as a proxy so the significant number issue is not relevant because the ability to do just past relevant work shows that he can do  providing an explanation of why he did and we either have to add a job as a supervisor with aspects of the actual influential say that there was no be testimony that she returns the tomatoes to order in this case we have vocational expert testimony that was extensive we have the explanation of what he did from plaintiff in the safer port my dr anderson dated in the year two thousand he said that even at that time the major part of his claim that difficulty was psychologically very fast and