court my name is randall forbes i represent the claimant holly reed in a real sense this clase this case is similar to two cases that were ruled on after a briefing but those cases i will cite have you allow me but they're not in a brief i don't want to violate the rule will be called in which is that which was the beginning of history and daily activities issues and that was sent back also this lady to the claimant to work hard for twenty six years at the very difficult work almost all of it medium on her feet i tried to calculate how many thousands you're see back on the motorcycle  i know that there was evidence that she rode a motorcycle i do not know whether she is driving one well no she was a passenger in the accident right she was no if she is her husband's you know i don't this i don't know what her husband's motorcycle activities are i know that he's an amputee now because of that act he's wife and amputee he lost his leg an accident a foot was or tire leg i don't i don't know the answer cleared her to return to work my question is has any doctor disagreed with the view since then but the but the main point is not sure exactly what was in the doctor's mind in that particular instance when he's considering work but at this case it is one at a fifty which she turned during the pendency of this action if she cannot do stand up work life work and the looking at the case as an entire or carry at the light level or even to stand for periods of time the the rest breaks that she needs to get through her levels of activity would disqualify her from work and there's plenty of evidence in the record that activity increases pain have a hard working woman twenty six years of very difficult and arduous work and object deve impairment i mean she had a career ending injury broke her leg on a carried a cane doctor's observe the cane never told her to stop using it that's one that's part of the context of the credibility analysis so the next question is do you believe what she says and i understand the a o and j is the primary determinant of credibility but they have standards that they got to work with one is they've got to give some weight to the work history is a real and meaningful work history and it was here and the second is that i can't overemphasize daily activities in order to  diminish credibility unless there are some really good reasons to do that and here there are not shit i miss you very very frank in her testimony about what she can do and she's also very opioid something to get the pain down that's one thing if she's taking some non narcotic pain medicine  when it boils down to whether or not her daily activities testimony is accepted and there's no indication of exaggeration i mean she she i mean she testified as to what she did it's not that doesn't appear that she that she's really holding back here so you've got to take the person as a whole and this that when you look at this person as a whole and look at the kind of work effort that she gave you know when she says she can't work because her leg in hips and her issues are all back and that is september two thousand and twelve so those are the midpoint things there's another portal thing about this case though that and that is that seven mentioned that she was limited in extension in rotation those limitations are not in the r f c and it's not unusual for a person to have to hearing and went through all of the of jeff the medical evidence including the opinion evidence in the record and all of those supported her conclusion that miss reed was capable of a limited range of light work the a l j acknowledged all of  achieve vacuums they l j just not skirt those limitations shelters that does not hold that against misread the l g a does not say that because she can vacuum a room or dost or prepare a meal that she would be able to do work  important to note that mystery did testify that she does continue to ride a motorcycle as a passenger what about the question of her pain medicine so this you terry pain medicine continuing your honor at the time of the hearing she testify that she was on prednisone she had received a prescription for norco about a month prior to the hearing there is no testimony specifically that i found about the frequency of the pain medication but at are it is also important to note that a look at all the opinions in the record only twenty weeks after the initial injury her orthopedics orthopedic surgeon dr wright were kind that she could return to work with regular  duties other than that the only other opinions on the record come from the state even see review in physicians and the a r j accepted and adopted those limitations and they had the benefit of not only the evidence up until dr writes opinion in november of and ten all the way through until they when they gave their opinion in june of two thousand and ten the objective evidence shows that misread continued to have a normal gate without the use of a cane it was  one of the judges said if you're trying to evaluate credibility you've got to look at the realities they're facing when one reality is this is is that she  has a husband who is missing a leg so she probably has to do more housework then then she wants to use my getting disability i don't know that answer i  believe that he's still trying to work but i would not want to have to say that without checking and then and  another comment was made you know is the activity making or worse off well probably probably it is there's a lot here the least that a nail jay can do for someone that is put in twenty six years and i ask you you just calculate two thousand hours a year times twenty six  times all of that standing and imagine what that really is is a big number she's they ought to at least look at her look at her work record take it into account