law judge rather than for an award of that if it's there are several critical factors in the case the first being that approximately five and a half years ago after mr israel's first in a straight line judge hearing  for full effort nobody has challenged those findings nobody has no physician provided an opinion that mr berger called wasn't qualified to do the examination or did not do it  properly and then you have a year and a half later the treating pain management specialist would treat it treated mr israel for a year and a half at that point giving almost the same opinion which was that mr israel is limited to working two or three hours a day he had remained the case for additional proceedings for consideration of those m r i s but the problem with with that finding is that mr israel's condition is a pain condition is primary diagnosis  so it's not expected to show up on m r i or x rays or even g s and that is in fact why mr israel was treated by pain management doctors and clinicians as opposed to an orth and there's no question on this record that dr harvey the pain management specialist believe that mr israel was in disabling pain he states that opinion and throughout the treatment notes he prescribe methadone and then when that wasn't sufficient katie and both of those are narcotics and then when those were insufficient he prescribes lyrica and a lighter germ patch and attaches a spinal cord stimulator that was not effective the true israel went to physical therapy but he had to stop because it just increased his pain the defendant points out that in the treatment notes there are times when mr israel says functioning so to mr mr israel that was the pain medication being effective because again in those treatment no it's very consistently mr israel noted that his pain was at best a five out of ten but at worst ten out of ten sometimes nine out of ten so his pain medication helped a little bit this is not a case where you have evidence of daily activities that were inconsistent with the doctor's opinion mr israel's testimony was that he was light lying down spend most of his day lying down with his feet elevated it did not help with the laundry he could no longer cook he didn't go to any of his daughter's advance she was in sports  wife testified that he had tried to go to the sporting event they brought a chair out there for him but he couldn't he couldn't do it he testified he didn't go out he didn't see friends he didn't see family there's no contradictory evidence dr harvey continually tried to get the insurance company to approve an interesting call pain pump which would deliver morphine directly to the spinal cord but the insurance company would not would not pay for that  gave a reasonable basis for rejecting the opinions of the specialist expression in this case a specialist who actually examined mr israel's passage for standing and walking in and sitting there's no reasonable basis on the record to reject please the court volleyball it's on behalf of the commissioner of social security the district court in this case did not abuse its discretion by remaining the case for further proceedings rather than awarding benefits am i correct with the opinion opinion it wasn't part of that record so it's not exactly in the same position now as it was at that point in time mr israel's points regarding that the court had or th kills counsel really ended this case for the same reasons the first dream and if you look at the actual the man's decision was based on an incorrect r f c finding residual functional capacity finding that the claimant is clearly disabled and this is so because the court doesn't have authority to award benefits except on the grounds that the claimant is disabled under the social security but if  court systems it seems to me while we do regret that this case has continued to go on and had several proceedings before the administrative law judge the law is that an award of benefits is not appropriate unless the record compels that finding and here because there is contradictory evidence with regard to the opinions that mr israel relies on that can't be the only outcome there are still factual issues that need to be resolved and as long as there is factual issues that continue to me to continue to need to be resolved it has to go back to the fact finder but it seems to me that enough the reviewing physics changes opinion could be need to be set back in order to be weighed against the other evidence and when it is added to the i evidence which the findings are minimal and this is mr israel's pain stems from his back and these m r i relate to the back so they become relevant evidence  going to show pain it if it doesn't show the level it can't predict the exact level of pain but what it can do is it to edge demonstrates a level of impairment and that in addition to medical opinions and here there's also the medical opinion from the consultation of examiner which could also be considered here he hears one thing i really don't understand the district court said that on their face the m r inconsistent with the subjective for the sort of pain in someone who has this history back surgery and extensive treatment for pain after the surgery well i i believe what the district court may have meant is that this is objective evidence under the regulations and the law in this circuit objective evidence can be considered in evaluating the extent of limitation an individual may have including when when that is pain and so with that evidence coupled with the physician evidence that the reviewing physician evidence who they had access to at least the two thousand and seven m r i that that creates we song question as to how much weight to give the opinions mr israel relies on don't think it's saying one way or the other but that it continues to be a factual problem here that isn't clear on its face in order for this court  find that there was an abuse of discretion or or even if it did find that the court the district court did abused its discretion the bottom line is the court can't award benefits which is the remedy that mr israel seeks unless it can say that the record here compels an award of benefits or compels a finding of disability and if this court can lawfully have all the evidence that was set forth in the district court's decision as well as the evidence that we laid out that further supports the district court's reason which is the reason being that there may be evidence that's inconsistent with the opinions if the court can say all of that evidence creates no doubt and these opinions have to be relied on that's the only way that an award of benefits would be appropriate there any further questions through out of eight hour work day he wasn't asked the report does indicate that mr israel was in constant pain during the exam so that's consistent with other doctor's reports but i think also the government