they they did and the regulation has adopted in the ruling mandates that the elderly consider all factors for which there is evidence in the record that excludes daily activity that includes the type dosage effectiveness of medications treatments other than medications side effects of medications they all day doesn't discuss any of those things and in this decision so the court can't tell had t he ruling against your client on the listings question and before considering the r f c question is after the court of public point of your argument yes i would discuss those for the ruling but since there is evidence of all of those things in this case they are jane is mandated to discuss those those factors and again because if he management doctor who gave an extensive in their treatment notes in their records both indicated that the instrumentation the claimant had implanted during the fusion surgery could be one of the main sources of her back  and that the instrumentation again could be causing her pain and then addition as we've pointed out in our brief there's maybe eight or nine places in the record including consistently to her relied on the only medical opinions in the record about how ms the data says impairments affected her ability to work in those opinions are supported by the medical evidence in the record there are no opinions that indicate that she more limited than the l g ultimately conclude no given this record council is focused on what the a l j did not discuss the decision but when we look at what is discussed in the decision it's substantial evidence imaging studies and fairly unremarkable findings on examinations related to her back her knee in her foot and that she went through the physical therapy over the years even though she continued to complain of her functioning improved elegy adequately explain the basis for his decision in the court should affirm it with respect to one of the key issues here the sitting limitation it's clear from the decision why the l for six hours a day again not only medical opinions say that she could set for six hours there no opinion saying that she could sit for less in the air when she gave those opinions from doctors cheating because she great weight and found them consistent with the in his decision as vision for the court to affirm it and find that it was supported by substantial evidence which is a blow bars the court and b s tech recently reiterated the o j consider the objective medical evidence including the physical examination so you know for example she reported eight out of ten iraqis but her doctor dr bertie observed despite those complaints she had full strength a normal range of motion women is good at is complained of severe r so the l g is characterization of the hallmarks i know her eyes was reasonable and not erroneous you know even though the regulations say that an l j can't discount subjective complaints based soley on objective medical evidence treatment including that she improved with physical therapy over the years her knee pain in fact appears to have resolved with physical therapy and even though she continued to complain of back pain after multiple rounds of physical therapy every time her functioning improved and then rd of course the l j gave great weight to the only medical opinions in the record  light work you know the l g is just question of the evidence as a whole makes it clear why he did not accept mr dallas is complete that she was only able to sit for thirty minutes at a time and had other disabled and limitations in the court chair for that decision subjective complain analysis what the commissioner used to call credibility analysis in the absence of a favorable medical opinion six mr would have said that instead the commissioner issued this ruling which is  subsequent to the ninety six staff seventeen which was very similar about seven pages single spaced very detailed mandating what a nail jay d must do to set to evaluate subjective complaints and four hours a day with no discussion of why he made that finding but didn't find her also limited and said it when the evidence shows it's really limited in both sitting and standing and she couldn't do the job that the case an expert