ever summarizing exactly what it is that the doctor says can implicitly and without explanation reject the manipulative occasional reaching in all directions and standing and walking two hours a hour day without ever telling us why in the cases are clear the case law has been very clear for a long time in the regulations that applied to the decision are very clear the new regulations are also clear they'll jay has to like we did in fifth grade shore math show the work and the algae did not do that here they all j gave significant weight to the opinion of dr godson and turned around and gave significant weight to the pins of dr taylor homes and pains of dr wall and there's a couple of reasons why that doesn't work dr taylor homes and dr wall never saw the report from d goes never got to contemplate the limitations that the examining physician had imposed on ms eva what do we do with molina the government seems to sense i don't know how you reasonably discern from that the fact the proposition that the ale j was going to reject any part of that opinion again doesn't doesn't address doesn't summarize and so the answer to my question not incorporate the more restrictive standing walking and reaching recommendations from dr gaunts that's a method that give us insight into the reasoning of the l g and how she reached the r c i think it gives us insight that she blew it i missed it because she it's a it's the marsh error in march vs holderness court addressed the failure to summarize a doctor's opinion at all in this case the l j failed to summarize what it is dr god's opinion was and dr dobson looking at the standing and walking limitation for instance dr god says i'm imposing the standing and walking imitation because of the significant limitations in this woman's back motion and the limitations and back motion are elsewhere in the record it's supported it's consistent the l t was right but the l g never addressed the significant limitations and back motion is a cause for limited standing and walking they are just characterized d goes opinion as consistent with light work and it's not it's not consistent with light work because the ale because standing and walking is the critical difference between sedentary and light work i the primary difference between sedentary and light work standing and walking and when the algae doesn't even countenance the fact that dr goads has said two hours of standing and walking and explains why significant motion limitations in motion flexion extension for a patient sideways bending the ale jay fails to comply with the regulation that was in effect then which was explained the way not let us figure out the weight later but is that fair that isn't fair and the regulations then and now tell us that the commissioner has a preference for the opinions of the examining physician over the non examining physician limitations were more consistent with the evidence of record why is that not a reasonable conclusion ducked or goads explain the limitation is based on on the loss of motion in the lumber slumber sacred spine dr taylor holmes and dr weil never got the opportunity to review dr goes his opinion and never got to review the findings that are very similar dr  also references throughout the record both she's got a normal game she's got a slow gait she's going to intelligent kay those references are all over the map but what is consistent is is what dr goads points out as as the critical the lynch incorporate the overhead reaching limitation into the residual functional capacity is incorrect they all they clearly did but what they all day didn't incorporate was the forward in downward reaching limiting that to occasional or the scanning and wa but didn't the ale j in those instances then leave dr goads and go to a tailor homes and wall and and put their stuff into the r f c i don't know why i don't know and with respect to standing and walking they'll jay has to explain why she rejected that discrete opinion generalized fudges not good enough i'll reserve my last fifty eight seconds if i think good morning your honor good morning patrick snyder representing nancy a berryhill commissioner of the soul security ministration all right plans private claimants primary argument in this case is that the  j did not properly way that opinion evidence however well his argument is the a l j didn't properly explain how it weigh the evidence what's your response correct correct your honor the response of that is at the very beginning of the  as the l g in this case actually set forth the framework that she was going to use she specifically said as with regards to opinion evidence no single sassaman has been completely adopted and the l j then went on to discuss the significant weight given to the various opinions and if you look at the record as a whole this record does not support disability and the l j l just a minute you get you when just so far which i was going with you but at the point where she says that's why i ask him the question i did at the point where she says i'm going to adopt this part i'm going to adopt this part i'm going to put this in the r f c i'm going to put this in the r of see what she never does a say why and that's what he's saying he's saying if we knew why then there would be something to say because frankly dr goads might deserve more deference then doctors tailor homes and wall and if dr goads deserves more deference then you've got to give a better explanation of why you're not going to go along with what dr goad says and that's all he's suggesting he's saying she's got to explain what she's doing and you know i looked at it if i look at dr taylor holmes there were no restrictions on tea on ricci none if i'd look at dr wall he says there were only restrictions overhead then if i looked at dr goh just totally different on reaching so how do i get the difference how how do i understand what she's telling me yes your honor in this case the ninth circuit in magna linus allows the court to make reasonable inferences in this agree and in this case there are some reason the inferences the court can m the l d s are see there aren't any reasons there's no previous reason molina i went to molina government was begun leaning well in a but there were previous reasons previously provided for accepting or rejecting so they said you could reasonably discern what what happens here so i read to every place in this record to try to find that out and i couldn't find it so that's where i'm back to you again your honor on page twenty seven the l j is discussing the worker's compensation evidence of the record and an l j specifically says that the objective evidence is consistent with a finding that the claimant could do work with the functional limitations described here and and there were three important pinions in this case all rendered within the same year looking at the important scans and that includes the agreed medical examiner dr how bridge and this this opinion this doctor went through fifteen hours opinion that is given significant weight there need to be other independent evidence in the record that that can support the algaes r f c and l j did did discuss dr halberd site specific lee did dr howard's decision throughout the record when th when discussing various plain claimants medical situations so they clearly took that into consideration when determining the r f c so with the opinion dr wall which which is the root of all these these three opinions were all ren points out a lot of reasons why what the l g a did was appropriate except that the l g a relied on none of i mean the government's made a better opinion for the l j than the opinion in the l j made for itself and that's what that's what the plaintiff a saying we don't know why this happened it didn't give us any basis the government tries to this ad hoc come up with some good reasons and frankly i would even say some of the reasons were pretty consider the various opinion evidence and the record as a whole when determining that our of c and and when looking at opinion evidence the regulations are clear that good reason must be given for a treating doctor however for other is complete specific facts are cited upon which the conclusion is based and is substantially largely consistent with the record as a whole saying that how do i get consistent if i reject any of his conclusions i mean they'll jay is responsible for resolving conflicts and doctors opinions doesn't seem to me that if you're going to say all that good stuff about goads you're going to reject some of the conclusions he did and then not tell me why you did but in your honor and in the framework of this case when you're looking at the facts in the pinions that they'll jay cited to in this case it's reasonable the r f c is reasonable and substantially go to it determine that light limitations were appropriate where is that in the record yes your honor on page ten eighteen of the record dr goads discusses that point of can live twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently the commissioner also does not believe that argument that that the walking and standing limitations are the only thing that separates light and sedentary work the lift also is an important consideration and this would be then a range of light work to l j they'll be incorporated most of dr goads limitations on page ten eighteen in fact dr gold's only said there was some some reaching limitation but in a describe exactly what that limitation would be and dr goh it's also said that on that page that the claimant could push and pull occasionally which was adopted in they'll jay's r f c so in this case the l d s r c is fairly restrictive and has coming out in some near depression and i'm dog and all pain then the main issue is her ability to reach and to walk stand and i can't find that taylor holmes  wall agreed on these well your honor in this case if we're looking at the record as a whole there's evidence on page eight seventy five that plaintiff continued working as a dance instructor two times in your grade for you to come up with th again that's what i said the first time the government gives i am full ample i'm paul ample caught go why there's evidence in this record just sustain what the l j did only also looking at dr how bridges opinion which i think is very good really really adds that independent support to the l j and the d d s decisions and opinion counsel thank you to both counsel the case just argued is that made it for decision by the for