r social security's rules all very nice is similarly and i ask you so there is a case that is remarkably similar to this one at least from what i can tell and here and sometimes i noticed the court or people who review these cases forget about it step three you can hear me to exactly the requirements or you were impairment part i which he has many i don't know the object his ejection fraction is in the twenty for the most part ok and whether the combination of your parents so are also we're going to be looking his obesity which came as a result of our government and he had a b m i forty at fourteen in the to report the only reports in fact the factors because of his knowledge of the program and if he reviewed the records but is what his testimony showed is he does not have knowledge of the program he did not know the requirements of the listing he did not know what was contained in a record that he repute he did not review the record as a whole he relied on two pages true and also if you just look at it you'll see that they o j twenty five he just kind of talked about those two pages of evidence he said why he was hoarding more weight to the medical expert and then he said and i've also considered the obesity and in the brief in our briefing you will see all the problem that there are with that medical expert so  needed to meet also one in two and that's not true it's one or two or three so he he just he didn't know the rules and you can't proper someone thought the hard condition very seriously limited a day or activities of daily living i'm looking at this check kind of this check box form in iraq atory that's eight anything specific about about what i'm sorry about well what's on the list thing that has to various very seriously limit his activities of daily living it's one thing to say he gets fatigued well seriously fatigued and so forth but i'm asking did he ever translate that into what the man can do day to day well he knew with his activities of daily living where because he interacted with them and talked to him he knew all the troubles he had he saw him but who did not know what his daily activities were was the medical expert and it was incumbent upon him and the a l j to the l g a to tell him what the daily activities were and then daily activities there in the testimony and in the adult function reports and consistent with his impairment his daily activities are not much at all he's very  defendant talks about the fact that he was only vigorous exercise that's not true that is not true that is not what the record said one consistent with his impairments i'm going to lay she have any questions and i reserve my time thank you not on whether or not plaintiff was disabled prior to that time because that period is now wrester to initially during the relevant period of time plaintive denied shortness of breath and chest pains but in late and thirteen he did develop an additional sometimes and he did have to have a quarter boll bypass surgery however after that surgery his treatment was only routine six month follow up treatments with d and he repeatedly denied shortness of breath chest pain or palpitations and despite put in tests reports of severe fatigue what dr farrow reported was quote some generalized fatigue and he did associate it with at one point vigorous exercise and at other points with exercise not with just routine activities of daily living decision then is supported by substantial evidence which the supreme court has defined as meaning and meaning only such relevant evidence as the reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion i do quickly want to note for your honour's that in the interim time between male j's decision the agency has undergone some fairly dramatic changes to rules and regulations regarding consideration of subjective allegation medical evidence specifically medical opinions and consideration of mental impairments all of those changes occurred after the claim in this case was filed and they have to be able j decision so they are not a political here and that is noted in our brief but as those cases are sort of alternating i think between the court i wanted to make that point counsel i wanted to ask you the same question i asked opposing counsel about the colvin case the one i cited earlier but again  that would actually i found a note on it in a lower ejection fraction the claimants name was carter very similar claim and had more serious functional limitations carter did than a dare are you familiar with that case at  all that the name sounds for sure and i'm not familiar with the specific facts or finding truth and while every one of these cases is different i was just curious because it's very very close in terms of the arguments that are being made thank you plaintiff's main argument here were guards whether or not his impairments meet the criteria of the listing plaintiff has the burden to prove that his impairments meet all of the criteria of the listings and the ale jake knowledge consistent with dr farrel statements that plaintiff satisfies the st criteria of listing four two that is the one that is represented by the testing results the very low ejection fraction however that does not meet the criteria all the criteria  specifically discussed those criteria of the listing and demonstrated a knowledge of that there standing by his discussion of what the evidence did and did not show the l g properly gave that opinion substantial weight dr ferals opinion is a a conclusory check mostly checkmark opinion indicating that plaintiffs meets the criteria of the listing when asked to show in what way plaintiffs meets those criteria d farah listed testing results those testing results do not demonstrate the forward to be criteria which are similar to the criterion for point zero for the other listing that plaintiff has raised therefore dr feral are meaning what they don't demonstrate the four dollars to be criteria what do you mean by that which be excuse me your honor the very serious limitation of the ability to initiate sustained or complete activities of daily living ok and the inability to perform an exercise test you too short it's a breath and then there's one that's not it issue which involves acute episodes of congestive heart failure none of those are shown in dr ferals opinion and they're not consistent with his records which again show in april th teen that plaintiffs had again some generalized fatigue with quote vigorous exercise in nov twenty four team doctor ferals notes indicate that plaintiff was exercising two to three times a week for thirty minutes at his deposition dr noted that he was that plaintiff was under growing daily exercise and plaintiff was encouraged by dr feral after having a knee surgery which isn't generally of issue here as it was found on sever e dr phil who encouraged him to continue his home exercise program further plaintiffs and his spouse reported activities that are not inconsistent with the sedentary r f c found by the l j including shopping for small items watching t v playing video games using a computer helping his children with homework driving instructor and school coaching his children sports from the sidelines not at what gym that he was engaging in sports those findings are not consistent with the very serious limitations required in the ability to sustain initiator complete activities so living part of the medical record at the initial level when the claim to try truly treat or examined no your honor dr trowbridge would have reviewed the records that were in the in the record at the time of the initial decision or the name did not rely on those records only instead be able to look to those opinions and found that they work consistent with the record as a whole and therefore gave them great way again they were consistent with the fact that plaintive was engaging in some activities that were consistent with inability to perform sedentary work in fact at his deposition in march two thousand and fourteen dr farrel specifically testified that plaintiff was capable of doing a desk job it was that there was not one of vailable at his at where he previously worked that indication is not consistent with dr ferals opinion that plaintiffs met or equal the criteria of lists of either very seriously limited in the ability to initiate sustain or complete activities of daily living it would also be inconsistent with as the supreme court has described the nature of the listings which are to cut off the consideration only for those very serious impairments that absolutely result in disability so someone who their own treating physicians that could perform a desk job and would be in it it would be inconsistent with saying that person could or equal the criteria of the listing however they all j looked at all of the evidence and in making those determinations including plaintiff's subjective allegation i'm sorry i thought i heard one of  including plaintiff's objective allegations as well as the nature of his treatment plaintiff has said that the ail j and dr krishnamurthy relied on only two pages in the record that is simply inaccurate  j in his decision clearly refers to many pages of the record and states repeatedly that he considered all of the evidence although dr krishnamurthy specifically refers to treatment kno is notable that after plaintive had his surgery in october two thousand and thirteen he only went to the doctor every six months other then for the treatment for his knee impairment which was a cute unresolved within twelve months so because he was only going to the doctor every six months between october two thousand and thirteen and the date of the ale j decision in august of two thousand and fifteen there would have only been three maybe four appointments with dr ferrel and that is indicated in the record and that those records plaintiff repeatedly denied shortness of breath chest pain or palpitations the record contains numerous pages that are merely readouts from his i d that pacemaker that was installed prior to the relevant time period and those records never show any palpitations or events recorded by the i c d the l j therefore properly considered the evidence and determining and gave proper consideration and articulated his reasons for giving weight to the medical opinions with regard to the listings they also properly considered plaintiff's obesity in combination with his cardiac impairment no doctor including dr krishnamurthy who specifically mentioned obesity in combination has indicated that plaintiff's obesity either alone or a listing as the court is probably where there is no listing for obesity there was many years ago but there is not any longer and that list and obesity can only be considered in connection with other listings but no doctor has indicated that alone or in connection with his obese or with his other impairments the plaintiff's obesity results and an equal or meeting any criteria at the listing he also challenges the hypothetical used by the you know jay what's your response or that opinion or that that argument seems to merely be a repetition of the argument objecting to the residual functional hypothetical question to the vocational expert was identical to the residual functional capacity which was consistent with the record as a whole as i have described and therefore the vocational expert testimony was proper it i don't believe there's a separate argument with regard to that it's not just part of it is saying that the question should have included the condition period by its nature a non zero impairment does not result in more than minimal limitations in addition plaintiff was limited to only sedentary work meaning he would be seated most of the time he could not climb any ladders rope scaffolds crawl kneel or crouch which would take into account any limitations that resulted from an acute knee problem that had resolved over all the  talked about him the men who were on made him very tired what a doctor furl say about the desk if he didn't say what the government was a person ask him about it in a deposition and he said that we thought about that yeah maybe he could do a desk job but he did not say he could do a desk job he's not a vocational expert he could do a desk job eight hours a day by days a week missing no more than two days of work perma that he could stay on task that he could have the fifteen minute break in the morning thirty minutes behind fifteen in the afternoon he did not say that and but but when he said he met our equal li twelve or fourteen they were going to switch to six month intervals but in twelve or fourteen p d compensated and so they couldn't do that you won't see that independence preet i really want to bring you to please look at the  l j did all they did was pull over the severe impairments arguments to step three argument and he did not consider the record as a whole he and he did i don't even believe he said he did but look at page twenty eight dollars he pulled over what he did under step three and then he said regarding the claimants credibility it the description of the symptoms are inconsistent why why are they in consistent why is it inconsistent poor person to be very tired look inconsistent what inconsistent and your step three finding is not your are at stake that that's what would stand here and dr trowbridge didn't look at the record we don't know whether special day is cardiologist who reviewed this case and i mean the things that were sorted are not considered upgrading from the check the box forms to improve your position in these cases we criticized the check the box forms and said we this it's it's permissible for a nail david discount them i simonis came from counsel two faryl and you know institutional security there's there deposition but but a medical expert who doesn't know social security's rules and did not review the record to pay to the base everything he sa to cannot override a treating cardiologist do you know how much it would have cost to get that treating cardiologist to appear at a hearing social security claimants can't afford that and that's the