the administrative record in this case reveals that when aetna began investigating whether davis was intitled to benefits under the any reasonable occupation definition of disability it's set out with a course of conduct of the goal of refuting the opinions of her treating physician dr cheatham who had repeatedly and adamantly opined that she had restrictions and limitations preventing her from doing a sedentary job and the actions that at no tuck are evidence of procedural on reasonableness which would give this court the right to give  decision in this case less deference but are also evidence of an abuse of discretion first at an actively sought evidence to discredit both the opinions of dr cheatham and dr crane the doctor it hired to do an independent medical examination of davis the nurse who reviewed davis is claimed when it started its investigation at the test change made a point of putting in the record that any sort of clinical outreach to dr cheatham would not be beneficial at all because he is sturrock lee and adamantly supported her disability so the nurse recommended that at no schedule and i am me for davis when that i am a doctor d crane essentially reaches the same conclusions dr cheatham had for a couple of years and then turned to a fraud investigation where they reviewed her husband's facebook pos and conducted surveillance of her which was very limited the total time the investigator followed her was less than two hours and the only captured about sixteen or seventeen minutes of her activities video then while deemphasizing the opinions of dr cheat is there any evidence of whether that's customary or not customary in other words you're making it sound like they're congo and trying to find any scrap of evidence they can to deny it although they did pay benefits for a number of years so i'm wondering if it's sort of customary after a period of time to begin to investigate further investigate further to make sure somebody doesn't claim disability forever when the disability has ceased or whatever i mean i would not say that it is a rare circumstance that disability insurer would do surveillance say at a test change but the question as you know the whole mindset behind trying to find any evidence what so all whatsoever to discredit the opinions of her treating physician you know should come into play here and also their surveillance here was a very limited value it did not show davis performing any activities they were inconsistent about her statements of her level of activity nor was she shown performing in activities that were contradictory to dr chee tim's restrictions or limitations and certainly it was not evidence that she could work a full time job forty hours even with no boom even without the surveillance don't you have two doctors a year after dr karim your review the records and determined that she's not disabled at least from any occupation versus her own but that she could do something said in theory yes that's correct and i and as i was going to get to this point that while they were trying to discredit the treating physician and the i am a doctor they heavily relied on the opinions of dr braun who did the peer review before the initial denial of the cla still did not provide all the relevant medical records including the physical capabilities limitations worksheets dr cheatham had filled out where he repeatedly gave her restrictions and limitations inconsistent with doing sedentary work and also despite the list of the exhaustive medical records and the did provide him he reviewed and analyze very few of those records for example he only discussed four of dr t tims offices of those he only discussed one out of fourteen lab test results in reviewing those records he said that the physical exam findings and the lab test essentially normal so then he relied heavily on the surveillance video to say well this is evidence she has no restrictions or limitations at all and in the conclusion of his report he made a point of saying fact there was a very large volume of medical records lab test results office visit attending physicians statements the work sheets that in fact supported her you know dr cheatin was right that she had very severe restrictions and limitations and in fact she thought you know it could be that davis was permanently disabled you know and then you also have the i mean report where the doctor actually met that i think there's some evidence to support your argument that she is permanently disabled but there's also an assess some argument to support the idea that she can do sedentary work and in that a situation where you can't win in this court well i would agree practicing law on this side that the standard of review under reza normally is very dissonant that you know it's a disadvantage for claimants but here and under the supreme court decision and glenn you know there are factors present in addition to adding a structural structural conflict of interest that show that that conflict affected the way  investigated the claim was there evidence that either of these two bronner i r i always finds have any not disabled or have some there's some question about their you know veracity if you will i mean unfortunately you know we didn't have discovery that would prove that point but i think there are analysis of the medical records and then the opinions they reached which they could not have reached if they had actually reviewed and analyzed all the medical records i think that alone is evidence of procedure on reasonable this now i may not have you know statistics that show that doctor i are ninety five percent of the time fines that claimants are not disabled for no i do not have that but i think that there are serious unexplained gaps lack of any rational connection between the actual medical evidence in the file and the conclusions both dr brown and d a during the initial claim of you that i made a point of telling dr braun that the administrative law judge had denied social security which he included in the records he reviewed in forming his opinions that did not happen with dr i are in the briefing in this case and also the district court's opinion however there are arguments that that denial of social security is a very relevant fact to whether an abused its discretion well that's wrong i mean that the case that the district court cited too as evidence that it was relevant evidence and facts says the contrary that the award of social security benefits is relevant evidence that the administrator has to consider because there's a sense there is a stricter standard under social security to get disability benefits than it is typically a you know insurance disability insurance policy or like the case here the fact that she may not have met this broader definition of disability is not evidence here and there's case law that says you know a denial of benefits is a very little relevance and there's also a district court opinion that says that the that the administrator can rely on a denial of social security as a reason to conduct further investigation in the case but it can't be the basis for the their decision they have to have other evidence and i was trying to you to say those w investigation so well i say fraud at no referred her claim to its risk management unit and it's unclear what sort of red flag popped up that caused her claim to be referred there was a social media review that pulled up her linked in profile and on her linked in profile it said she was taking courses at north central university and on online course and then from there that's when they did a more broader social media review and found her husband's facebook page and the value of anything on her husband's facebook page is somehow evidence of her activities you know certainly is something the parties can dress contest i think it's a little evidence and that it also caused them to do the surveillance on mice and not the finding out about the s s d i i determination that prompted the investigation that happen around the same time i think it's been kind of unclear a but you're right it may be you know finding out about that decision prompted the investigation that would not be unreasonable no ok so you are going out you find out that that she's been  benefits by some governmental entity and therefore you dig a little deeper right a little different spin than the original point where you said they're trying to just undermine dr crane he was actually a year before right i mean but at the same time of the denial you know by the administrative law judge you know there is a question as to how much of value dr crane's opinion actually had because despite the fact that evan did not give any specific instructions on how to conduct a after the fact when he gave them an unfavorable opinion they criticized him for not doing any specific functional testing but i mean i would submit that you know if it was only the administrative law judge decision that caused the fraud investigation there was nothing obtained in the fraud investigation that would support the fact that she had no restrictions of limitations of all but they didn't find that they're not going to go have her be a steve do or something like kathy's saying she can do sanitary work that's different from saying there's no restrictions at all i think the fact you know of the told time they observed her doing short errands going through the drive through  food restaurants going through the drive through of pharmacy walking with her son into a city hall you know sitting in her car for short periods you know driving short distances that in no way shows that she can do a sedentary job forty hours a week you know like dr cheatham sat she was restricted from doing any sort of prolonged sitting standing or walking he had limited you know the amount she could carry there is nothing on that surveillance seven anyway contradicts that and in fact there is case law that says you know if you have surveillance of a claimant for very brief periods that that unless they're doing some activity beyond their description of what their restrictions are of the treating physicians that that is in no way evidence of an ability to do a full time job that i mean if the surveillance was improperly considered is the answer that we then were fine benefits in your favor or that we re man to consider without the surveillance because it seems like there's still evidence to support what the administrator did even without the surveillance because you have these two doctors but i would i would argue that the opinion of the two doctors is not very good evidence it's not substantial evidence that she is not disabled where they both analyzed very few of her medical records they cherry picked statements they thought were favorable from the few records they did review and in reaching these broad sweeping conclusions of there's no medical evidence at all they obviously were ignoring you know a good amount of evidence that showed you know that she did in fact have objective evidence of her disability and in any case you know head nod never gave much credence to dot davis is subjective complaints regarding her chronic fatigue regarding her pain they really made no mention of the fact that dr cheat him repeatedly recorded this in records you know and that's a problem i think to the peer review physicians opinions alone are not substantial evidence that she's not disabled and because at the wholesale relied on those opinions i mean that's not only procedurally and and reasonable but it's also evidence of an abuse of discretion so i would say even if we don't take the surveillance into account they really don't know and i understand the standard is very favorable for aetna they do not have any sort of substantial evidence to support th hartford in fact you your honor or draft an opinion in a case called hagen where you know there are different different factors put forward about what could be procedurally and reasonable and hagan you did not find from the claim and so they have no evidence but in any reasons first it is undisputed that an abuse of discretion standard of review applies and that it was operating under an apparent conflict of interest because it was acting as both the insurer and the claims administrator of the planet issue however all evidence before it including dr chee thems medical records the i m u report plaintiff self reported restrictions and limitations the video surveillance and social media investigation a peer review physician report and dr chee tim's comments to the peer review physician at night determined that the clinical evidence in conjunction with the pilots demonstrate a functional capabilities failed to support restrictions or limitations that would preclude her from from performing a sedentary occupation second at most decision to terminate appellants benefits was based on concrete evidence in the record consider the reports imposition of a physician dr cheatham and appellant self reports of pain and fatigue but ultimately relied on the reports of its peer reviewed physicians and video and social media surveillance which demonstrated that appellant was able to engage in physical activities contrary to herself reports to ask you about that i mean her condition as i understand it is that she's not saying she's paralyzed and then we see her walking around ok which would be completely inconsistent lu 's i appreciate it is something that you have good days and bad days so there could be days that she can walk around or go to walmart or whatever and then there's days that she can't even get out of bed and so that would be consistent with the surveillance but inconsistent with being able to hold down a regular forty hour a week job as a receptionist or something where they expect you to show up every day what was shown on the surveillance that calls into question first she she reported to us that she never drove that she was not allowed to drive to her treating physician told her not to drive over surveillance shows for driving on two separate this additionally her treating physician consistently over multiple years says she can't bend she can't turn she can't cross all of these things are demonstrated on the surveillance bus the surveillance calls into question both her training physician dr position as well as her herself reports to them and her physician which largely doctor chewed on was relying on her self reports of pain to say she can't do all the time that somebody bends doesn't mean they don't have pain when they bend i mean the there are things that you would say i can't do that and then if you're forced to if you know if your child's isn't going to die if you don't bend y o bend but it's still very very painful so i am happy again i'm having trouble because it seems like dr cheat i'm saying she has good days and bad days there's days she's going to be able to do more than other i understand at the driving but the rest of it doesn't seem like you saying she's paralyzed in completely unable to move her legs for example then all of sudden she's running in a marathon is wasn't that i mean this wasn't that dramatic it's not inconsistent with someone who has good days and bad days absolutely however what dr cheatham did say is she can never bad she can never twist she can never do these things consistently and has functional capacity he consistently says she can never do these things and on the surveillance if you watch the surveillance it's clear that she's doing all of these activities with ease and with no apparent sick no apparent pain at all so do you think this actually is from i mean she's actually lying as opposed to this is just an inconsistency among doctors i believe that there is no question that she has lupus however whether she has lupus to such a debilitating level that she can perform she can't perform a occupation here or there there is concrete evidence in the rock her that she can perform the duties the functions that both she and her treating physician were saying she couldn't do thus there is concrete evidence on the record to question the credibility of herself reports in light of the surveillance and social media posts that showed she was capable of activities contrary to herself reports including driving rotating her neck reaching with both arms grabbing bending fingering carrying a large shoulder bag and walking with a normal gate without the use of any assistive devices activities all completed without any signs of pain or distress additionally there is concrete support in the administrat l j determination and peer reviews all provide support for at this determination that appellant was not disabled under the terms of the plan the three days of sub rosso surveillance of plaintiff activities were completed on december thirty and thirty one two thousand and thirteen and january third two thousand and fourteen the surveillance tracked opponent for twenty two minutes on the thirty first and an hour and forty seven minutes on the third during the summer and went on the summer thirty first she drove to a mcdonald's drive through at ten thirty five in the morning not only was she driving which she reported to know that she did not do only days before but it also showed her twisting multiple times handling drinks on a back to sort of on friday the third there was an hour and forty seven minutes of continual coverage showing a substantial amount of physical activities from noon until four to forty five pm and no sign of any restricted body movements or cane she began with driving to a pharmacy where she waited in the drive thru lane during the wait she talked on her phone turned and reached into the back seat twisting secured her seat belt reached down into the backseat again continued to scroll through and speak on her phone she drove sat and concentrated on driving using her hand for a total of forty minutes she then drove to city hall where she left her via call walked inside at a normal pace with her minor son carrying a large shoulder bag on her shoulder when she exit at city hall a few minutes later she walked back to her car again at a normal pace with a normal gate and without any signs of pain she was then witnessed driving through two more fast food drive through as before she returned home an hour and forty seven minutes after departing her movements in the surveillance video appear on restricted are completed with no apparent discomfort and doc contradict dr cheatham statements that she could never lift pole push handcrafts bend or twist additionally of the posts from opponents husbands facebook account during the same period demonstrate the plaintiff was socially and physically active during  two month period between june twenty ninth two thousand and thirteen and august twenty eighth two thousand and thirteen opponents husband checked in on his facebook page on eight different days at various locations indicating that he was with  these locations included the alamo seaworld san antonio a movie theater a bowling alley a night club and various restaurants on june twenty ninth two thousand and thirteen her husband checked in with a pilot and other individuals at a restaurant called texas roadhouse the very next day on june thirtieth two thousand and thirteen he checked in with a poland at raising cane's restaurant and then later at the shock bond girl on july thirteenth two thousand and thirteen he checked in with the pollen aquatics of san antonio the next day he checked in with the pilot at the alamo on july twentieth two thousand and thirteen he checked in with the pilot at three hundred lounge and bowling alley and then later at the studio movie grow and stated that he was with wifey watching the conjuring and on august third two thousand and thirteen he checked in with talent at button's restaurant finally on august twenty third two thousand and thirteen he posted that he was with shawn at hooters and then later that he posted that wifey and i were club medusa which is a large dallas nightclub these posts show sig a significant amount of social activity that would likely involve sitting for prolonged periods of time and a regarding her functional abilities dr cheatham consistently maintained that opponent was permanently disabled and could never walk reach sit and stoop the activities shown in their surveillance and in the social media posts indicate otherwise the only rebuttal evidence received regarding the surveillance is a comment from dr cheatham who advised that appellant has good days and bad days and those were good days however this response problematic first guest is not a doctor it's the fact that a poet was driving and she had told me that she never drove because dr cheatham told her not to further these activities are not isolated days the surveillance was completed on two separate days only three days apart and the social media posts show consistent social activity over a two month period a poet herself never sought to discredit explain or give counter evidence to the surveillance the post of her husband or the claim that she was attending an online classes and northwestern university she did not at night with any rebuttal evidence of yet an affidavit from her husband friends or family the only rebuttal evident on appeal that she provided was an office note from dr cheatham from july two thousand and fourteen but that note indicates that logic function or negative and there were viewed and considered this rebuttal evidence and addressed it in its final letter upholding its decision to terminate benefits finally the administrative law judge's decision to nine opponents appeal seeking social security disability benefits also supports atmos terminations the a minimally state of law judge's decision is noteworthy as it relates to the credibility of appellant soft reporting which is the seminal issue here the administrative law judge also questioned upon itself reporting and determined her statements were not credible he felt her statements were quote outside the range of medically reasonable attribution given the probing process of the administrative review coupled with the  of like to address a few of the comments that a police council made in her arguments of first the value of the surveillance and husband's facebook post evidence first of all they attempted ever tempted surveillance on three days on one day they never saw davis leave her house and the fact is the two days they actually saw her leave the house for several days apart you know like dr cheatham said and also davis told in several different interviews with her that some days she can go out and do errands she can attend school events with her son and then other days she's bedroom you know unlike you acknowledge dr hans with lupus you're going to have good jobs i have a college to get her you got to have good days you're going to have bad days and what's interesting in dr iris report is that he makes a concession that with lupus you would expect davis to have you would expect her to have flare ups of her lupus that would require the imposition of restrictions of limitations but when he reviewed the service surveillance video he did not make the connection that perhaps the activities she was observed performing which i believe are not evidence she has no restrictions or limitations that they could have been done on a good day as opposed to the day where she never saw her house left her house that could be a bad day  addition counsel made a big point about how the video surveillance doesn't show that davis was of any pain is so that she was doing you know these activities with ease you know a comment she made about bending and twisting those are not the requirements of a sedentary job anyway it's more prolonged sitting using your hands for typing holding a phone and she also made a point that it davis had the opportunity to opportunity rebut the evidence about her attending courses at north central university or robotic the evidence on the husband's facebook post but at the does not mention another is denial letter or appeal letter that it was relying on that evidence davis handled her own appeal so she did not request her administrative record to prepare her appeal so she didn't know that it and fact live on it that this court rendered the decision in a case called dino versus raytheon and two thousand and five that is very similar to this case there the claimant had rheumatoid arthritis and much of the same evidence that