hill good morning your honour's morning the question in this case ultimately is whether and miss corby error was disabled on or before may twelfth two thousand and fifteen and if determination and the commissioner also realize in their brief to you that you should rely on the broad case that was a decision regarding a vocational expert and the weight given to him and it was dicked because they held the court held and brought that substantial deference should be given to l j determinations of fact and that relied on immigration cases the standard or review that you use is that you have the planetary power to the novo review the decision and you're not just a rubber stamp as you know and supported by substantial that's right and that's substantial evidence is defined at looking at the evidence from both sides you look at what gives it weight and what detracts from the weight so this is different than in summary judgment or directed verdict where you just need any evidence that somebody could rely on you really have to weigh the evidence in deciding what substantial and it's also on controverted that the sort from many many cases from this court that the social security act is a remedial statute and must be liberally construed to an clued and exclude you get to specifics of your case yes and that now i'm getting to the specifics of the case in this case there was straight leg raises she had limited motion in her spawn she had sensory deficits in the limited range of motion and those years than all that and physicians he did and he was wrong because there was not substantial evidence to overcome the objective evidence of the mass effect under nerve root he found that her testimony about pain and needing to lie down was not was not supported that she was not credible the evidence that he cited was not substantial you know she was able to do some things but she had testified have to be determined we examined a determination that a person was not credible or at least not credible and parties her testimony  evidence just listening to a witness watching his her demeanor and deciding well this doesn't really ring true and they look like they're not telling the truth so substantial evidence is looking at it from both sides and what a reasonable mind would find so once you know we've all known to you it seems to me and that may be the problem and you've got here the d l j is finding that your client the applicant is not credible and some of the things she saying about what she can and cannot do that's an issue right but there was no it's whether what he relied on in light of the objective test that's starting or not i'm not arguing that she was right to say well you know i'm not arguing that she was disabled by only her mental illness but starting when she started complaining about her back and then had these objective test if you heard if you had knew somebody and they had a nerve impingement in their back and said my back hurts i have to lie down saying that she occasionally cooked dinner occasionally did a few things would you say this person is not credible no and substantial would i know what the effect of enjoyment on a nerve root would be without medical opinion that describe what the effect would be or gave some view as to what the person's capacity might be in light of that particular diagnosis i'm not a doctor and i'm not exactly in the either and so once you have the case law and the regulations once you have objective evidence to support a claim you can't say they're not credible because when you but my problem is you have objective evidence that there are medical conditions but how do we what is the evidence that tells us one way or the other what the impact of those objective conditions is this is not a civil case where we bring in opposing experts once you have that under the case law once you have a condition that could produce pain then the judge cannot decide it does isn't and you would need substantial evidence of the extent of the pain and how that interferes with functioning isn't it but how can it what 's the substantial evidence that she was not credible the judge here was the judge was applying his own medical knowledge with substantial evidence test applies to the overall determination of  capacity it doesn't apply to every subsidiary finding that comes up no no the substantial evidence test is there substantial evidence to support whether or not she was credible and the cases go go way back on that determination or secretary support but it's whether if you look at the case law it's whether each predicate each part of that determination whether there is substantial evidence to find credibility whether there is substantial evidence to support the treating physician let me just move on  is that someone with these objective test results would have to lie down as often as the plaintiff claims she did that's the case law that with that kind of objective evidence it would support it having a nerve compression she was very close to one hundred four which is for nerve the presumpti disability she had a nerve root compression and she had limited range of motion she had a positive straight leg and what when it's an equal two as opposed to meeting it it means that her limitations but this is not a civil lawsuit never heard that we have to prove that a nerve root compression can cause pain and i think that that is within the realm of medical knowledge and if the case is about evaluating pain talk about that once you have this kind of objective test we don't have to have a burden to show it can cause pain three three three  provider is that that more identified by your by you and your client it seems to me are not treating medical sources you one is a social worker another it is a home worker and the third trainer her only once you know the the mental health part i think that in addition to the physical may add to her limitations i think the judge probably did correctly determine her mental r f c and that she can't deal with the public my main argument is that it's the physical part where he erred and also the obesity because he didn't explain how a woman with a b m i of forty four of morbid obesity and nerve compression of the back could work on a examined the documented obesity when of evaluating testimony concerning limitations yeah i actually referred to her obesity and twice at least in the decision  specifically said that he was applying the role of an s s r in making determinations regarding her or her abilities and in fact it looks like he did so in a smudge as they are see reflects much greater on the other evidence of record such as the mostly normal examination findings the be relatively good daily activities as reported to dr melcher and the conservative treatment and denial  treatment so given that i think that there is some indication that that he considered obesity that said we also have case law like gates which is cited in the briefs saying if a nail j says that he has considered something or has done something it's up to the plaintiffs the appellant to demonstrate that he has been here given the you repeated citations obesity i don't think we can you can do that case or is a good case for that proposition that is their burden of proof not ours substantial evidence standard is a very deferential standard to review the most actually and it does not require all evidence to support  e position it doesn't even require more of the evidence to support the decision and what it also does is means that the l j gets to reasonably interpret evidence consistent with the record at large not the claimant again so in terms of the council saying that the m r i shows something or another he said he no legal or medical authority for the proposition that that m r i means anything and when looked at the record of large which a as i indicated includes relatively conservative treatment mostly normal examination findings and significant daily activities it was reasonable for the l g to reach the determination they did it's important to emphasize here and i think something that's lost throughout the briefing here today in coun argument this is an extremely restrictive r f c sedentary work is the least demanding category of work recognized by our regulations and that necessarily a cut necessarily accommodates a fair amount of abnormality you would expect to see abnormalities in a record where the has found that they were limited to cemetery work otherwise the l j would find that she could do light work and medium work and heavy work and very heavy work so the very fact that there are some abnormality is not a problem and also under the substantial evidence standard even if it was inconsistent that wouldn't be fatal because all of the evidence does not have to support the decision given the other questions there parts to that ok  and so just just reiterating that this is a very restrictive r f c this is substance a subject to the most deferential standard of review and in addition to all of those findings i think it's important to note that the but you know oral argument her view i noticed that she tells her therapist that she's very excited because for the first time ever her husband has agreed to contribute to the housework which means that before that at the rear end she was doing all the house so this is not someone who was ordered over to our i guess nobody was done but but considering that she had mentioned to dr meltzer that she does chores the combination of us who just indicates that she's not doing nothing and she also is getting out of bed in as much as she's going for walks that she's reported to her pain management specialist she's going to treatment sessions other things that show that she is getting out she also indicates that she spends a lot of time playing on the computer and  doing other things so there definitely was a fair amount of evidence and even just the treatment notes that you're looking at that don't show a great deal of abnormality on a consistent basis is just inconsistent with the idea and not to mention the fact that she decided to just basically stop doing anything at the end of her treatment with like who you are that she basically said you know i'm not going to try massage i'm not going to try physical therapy i'm just going to like move on with my life you're bedridden but you're not doing any of that stuff that's inconsistent and under the s those kind of inconsistency is there exactly what their determination of credibility on and here bent over backwards to accept most of what she had to say but that just was a bridge too far and the other questions two thousand and fourteen before she reported her physical impairments and i think that's part of the error here is the judge relied on statements before she claimed she was physically disabled we don't have first reported her leg pain and then she reported tangling so it wasn't until august twenty sixth two thousand and fourteen months after she saw dr melcher that she had this m r i the case law makes clear from this circuit in every circuit that when you have objective evidence that supports pain that the court has to consider that and i understand that you want to have a doctor saying a nerve impingement can cause pain but the case law that is not what the law is that in light of that after august twenty sixth there are not reports that she could do everything actually she reported to her therapist that she was doing almost nothing that she was having we have to look at that date onwards soame asking this court to look starting june twenty third when she reported leg weakness and falling because of it is there is substantial evidence that she was lawyering that she was not credible she didn't say she was bedridden she spent much of the day in bed but she was able to do some chores and it was very hard and it caused her pain the l g a did not explain how somebody with a b m i of forty four and that kind of nerve impingement could perform even sedentary work where you have to walk for two hours a day and