reviewed evidence of ms morgan's back and neck pain she improperly evaluated the intensity persistence and limiting effects of miss morgan symptoms which is what we used to call a credibility determination and she also morgan's back and neck pain problems and there are several mistakes that she made i made a list and i counted fifteen different mistakes that she made  in in doing that some of them more significant than others but part of that there were six different assessments by her primary care physician d who assessed two to three plus or three plus tenderness in the lumbar spine and on the tenderness scale that the doctors use it goes from zero to three dollars with zero being nothing and three being the worst there is normal findings didn't mention that miss morgan straight leg test was positive there was another time in summarizing the exam that was done by the doctor cho spine bilaterally mr brennan or can i lend an impression to your argument and you can push back on me it seems to me in light of the concession that you made on page three of your brief that you're not challenging that the back issues the back and neck pain issues are a severe impairment for purposes of step two ok that you're not challenging that that what you need to do is show that these omissions as you're outlining from the l j opinion affected the r f c determination right ok and can you what would help me is if you can link the observations that you're making about the omissions to functional limitations that you think should have been in there because we've made clear in cases like jones v astrue that an ale jade is not commit reversible error for failure to for failing to identify everything in the medical record right because a contrary position would basically impose a typing all right well with with the tenderness issues for example when a person has three but no three tenderness on the on the zero to three scale that tells you that there's pain in that area and that tells you that also because of that pain the person may have trouble focusing so there's no question about that at that level of generality and that it there's no question that the l j recognize that  morgan unfortunately suffers from meaningful back pain note no doubt about any of that so the only question is is the light work r f c does it reflect a legal error under the substantial evidence the internet seems to me that you need to point to evidence that shows that the tenderness and you know this in that that resulted and in additional functional limitation i don't i can't point t evidence that says you know dr soandso said that three plus tenderness means that she can only stand for four hours a day or only two hours a day i can tell you that all of the things that she'll midhat are findings that relate to some kind of pain or some kind of abnormality in the body that reduces a person's function  six hours out of an eight hour day and can lift up to twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently all of these things that were all mid are indications of abnormalities  that lead to limitations and function and and for her to be awarded benefits in this case she can be a word of benefits even if she is found to be capable of doing sedentary work so the issue is when you when you put all of these omitted findings on on the scales does that tip the scales enough so that it a limitation to sedentary activity we're not claiming that she's bedridden but if because of her age and her education and her past record spirits if she is found to be limited to sedentary activity then why they the commissioners own regulations they direct a finding that she's disabled so that's that's the significance of all of those are minute find s the v l j also made some mistakes in evaluating miss morgan symptoms those mistakes that she made with respect to the back and the neck limitations  also affected her credibility a valuation in fact most of them were from the credibility of valuation she also played doctor if you will obscene or her expertise in a couple of conclusions one was that there were no imaging studies that showed nerve root impingement and i'm not a doctor i'm not qualified to say that person has no pain  less there is nerve root impingement but i am qualified to say that there is nothing in the record that suggests that people can have pain without nerve root impingement they l j also wrote that she also discredited mrs morgan's allegations because she had not undergone surgery that's a problem she discredited her because there's been little in the way of actual treatment without an explanation of why  that violates social security ruling sixteen dash three p which says in order to do that you have to ask for an explanation that's been the law for a long time even with s s r to stop at this point honor no doctor opined that ms morgan had disabling functional image patients or even that she was limited to a range of sedentary work which is what mr and mr anna now argue she should be limited to in fact  bronner represented ms morgan throughout the hearing proceedings and still did not offer any medical opinions from her treating or even examining physician despite the fact that the only medical pinions in the record record as a whole including ms morgan's subjective reports now mr ronna doesn't respond to that issue midmorning did not substantially address the opinions or con accepted some of the limitations that were supported inconsistent with the record and rejected others which would include the environmental imitation that accurately dr a scone in a pot and because there is no basis for those limitations on the record a point that ms morgan does not contest as to the evidence that the ale jihad and the doctors did not there actually is very little dr whitney issued her opinion in october of two thousand and sixteen and indicated that she reviewed everything in the file before affirming dr scone an opinion that were two incidences of back tenderness which your honor pointed out does not equate to any functional limitation and the mere fact that ms morgan had back tenderness or two additional  what ms morgan is doing is effectively nitpicking the l g s decision and accusing doing what she says the o j of doing which is highlighting specific findings and saying without context that those findings support greater  limitations on the l g a found but if you look closer at these findings most of them the l j didn't discuss just not necessarily to the degree ms morgan would have liked but as your honor pointed out this is not a typing  possibly write every abnormal finding or every summary of every m r i in every case that would be onerous and implausible even in cases where there like this case where there's not a huge record it's still an extensive amount identifying every discrete exam pining and either direction now as to the evidence not specifically attracts again those aren't functional limitation tenderness and someone's backed is not mean they cannot walk or lift or carry a certain amount and again no doctor here indicated that ms morgan's tenderness equated to that and that tenderness is actually the only abnormal finding from her primary care doctor who treated her back pain in otherwise absolutely normal exams including negative straight leg brace to us which she goes to the next point which is that most of these findings that ms morgan highlights are unique they did not occur again in the record there is one positive trait like raised us among c of negative trait like ra which is a test for determining the location of back pain and there was one incident where she had tight neck muscles but again the rest of her exam at that time to her neck was normal and that was actually her last visit a nd visit work as to ms morgan arguments regarding the subject of symptom analysis again be able to consider the record as a whole so ms morgan highlighting things like that l j mentioning the lack of  lack of surgery is really asking this court to consider the algaes analysis piecemeal in a vacuum which goes against the context failed to provide it and also this court's precedent requiring that l j decisions must be read as a whole they'll be considered ms morgan medical records as a whole in finding that they did not support ms morgan's allegations of disabling limitations this was not merely one incidence impingement but also the fact that she consistently had normal gait and generally had normal muscle strength and had one only took norco for pain that goes to the surgery element where the l g did mention she didn't have surgery but this is not like the cases cited by ms morgan where her doctor said don't have surgery it won't help you it will make things worse or it's not a good option based on your history and that the claimants in those caves had much more extensive treatment like injections and physical therapy and pain management whereas here mention of ms morgan's lack of surgery was merely a part of b o t s consideration that her treatment as a whole was conservative in nature she didn't require surgery they didn't even make it to that step because she had little in the way of actual treatment which was essentially pain medication norco which is hydrocodone in tylenol and that can says that treatment was consistent over the entire period b o j did not erin considering ms morgan's treatment history and in finding that her allegations of disabling pain were not wholly consistent with the record likewise because the l j considered morgan's treatment history she was not finding miss morgan failed to pursue treatment or failed to follow treatment which would have inquired would have required reasoning but the distinction there is a focus on the claimant's behavior here the l g was merely recognizing the only treatment she required was conservative in nature and she required little treatment it's not a case where the l j said oh her doctor recommended surgery but she didn't get it so i'm going to hold that against her and not ask why it's a case where no doctor recommended surgery it didn't rise to that level and so he able to properly recognize that in finding ms morgan's conservative treatment history did not support her allegations of disabling pain as a result ms morgan's request here is really a request that this court reweigh the evidence which it has consistently found it cannot do and i would ask this court to claim that because they have a recently relied on the medical opinions on the record recently considered both medical evidence supporting and against a finding of disability and ms morgan subjective reports there is no error here if there are no questions for the  lack of doctors opinions the law is not that the claimant always loses unless there's a doctor's opinion that states more than what the a out j found the he has independent duties she has to independently review every case after fulfilling all of her duties and those duties include doing proper symptoms of violations and weighing the evidence in a balanced manner and confronting the evidence that does not support her decision and so that's what we're asking we're not telling the court to order the a l j to find that she's disabled but the difference here between life and send terry is the difference between an allowance and a denial and we just would like the a o j to make that decision by following all of the rules following the regulations and the rulings and this court's case long j here made a lot of mistakes and in fact the various omissions that we pointed out the commissioner said a remain in this case to the commissioner for another hearing and another decision and i can thank both counsel and the case will take us on to could be taken under advisement and this is the final case for this morning afternoon now and we'll see you later