post traumatic migraine headaches the question that arises is whether those headaches created any limitation to the point disability work consistently the administrative law vocational expert testified that even if the plaintiff could be on task ninety five percent of the time even if he could be at work twenty nine dollars out of the thirty days it would be no job remaining if either one either five percent off task or one day missed given both the factual findings in this case and the opinion evidence we don't think there's any question that both of those would be no for the commissioner doesn't say what moderate is a certainly not nothing and in the context of the categories of mild moderate and marked certainly moderate but from what i'm gathering they saw each other at most three times during the whole period and issue is is that right is that a problem here argument well he rashid three times on referral from the his office three times on referral from the primary the question is whether or not that's a pre quincey consistency this is on page two of our reply and this daiquiri what he was what he was directed to do by his treating sources he saw them and it was at the end of the period since two thousand and thirteen and even if not as we argue throughout our brief and tried to reply brief there was no evaluation of doctor rush each testimony beyond what we think is the improper finding that that was not consistent with the object of evidence so in number one we don't think it was properly considered by the by the administrative law judge and number two even if not in the decision finding no period of time off to ask the headaches never create any period of time off task not no and all the other providers or any absenteeism is not supported and it should be sent back so it could be you know properly considered how do you respond to  trade would need to be off pass for twenty percent right as we set forth in our brief with respect to doctor hughes that was right at the beginning number one back in two thousand and thirteen before any of the other medical records number two it is a one time review not even by a so strict consultant but rather by an adverse party in the worker's comp number three even the judge didn't accept what couple of tests to rule things out and they weren't and there was no history at that point it was at the very beginning we believe that similar to a non examiner or similar to a one time examiner who seems before any of the records actually come in that this shouldn't have been given certainly should have been given the greatest weight and if anything should have been given anyway certainly doctor mcgirr know the actual consultant for the commissioner found moderate disruption to schedule have gotten back the doctor's correct you are absolutely correct and we acknowledge that in our in our in our arguments and also set forth that he certainly is the doctor who is seen who has the greatest doctor she never saw such a log or made any kind of examination after that right and i missed any of those i had read with that he had been on medication throughout their numerous there are numerous citations which we set forth that medication so any assessment as to whether he was you know going to be impaired would have limited weight when he wasn't even on medication at the time right i believe forgive me i guess i guess i will take that i will have to look during my period for a bottle i thought he was on medication throughout i will read that all the notes from july indicate that he wasn't on medication and i understand it but perhaps i mis doctor rushing needs opinion the others are psych opinions as to what and even there not examiner says moderate limitation to ability to maintain a schedule but those are all those are all psychiatric  question as to the extent of the headaches whether or not he had to vomit or not and doctor russell who said he saw him you know in pain and he had no question that the headaches would not allow him to work said that  claimant didn't ask for the blinds to be drawn assuming that he even noticed whether the blinds were drawn or not assuming that he felt that he could tell the doctor what to do with the doctor's office  off of the doctor's conclusions of the of the portion of the transcript that you mentioned indicate that they both believe that there were headaches and that the headaches did not allow him to work and then there's all the other references from all the other doctors who when they see him know that he's in pain note that he has headaches so certainly you can cherry pick and misstate but you know we did we did argue on that j properly considered all of the medical evidence and a search in her view of the record shows the good reasons the l j had for giving no weight to doctor issues opinion regarding appellant attendance and off task limitations st the record reflect what doctor if she'd only one which goes to the regulatory factor of nature and frequency length and extent of the treatment relationship that's in the l j consider the amount of medical evidence supporting doctor received opinion regarding off path in attendance limitation  evidence of record during my preparation for this argument i became aware two decisions by this court already deciding the evidentiary value of the off task and attendance limitation elicited pacifically from the identical forms that were used here finding that they were and inconsistent with the record or not they offered little or nothing with regard to clinical findings and diagnostic results and were inconsistent with moderate findings reflected in the doctor's notes those cases were human are very healthy seven  assume that richie was not a treating physician with no explanation as to the reason given that the r f c determination is based in large know i mean i guess two questions the st is with respect to whether doctor rashid is a treating physician is there any more in the record or does a record still need to be developed as to whether he's treating that there's feigning nausea and vomiting their parents lack of sensitivity to light when he was there for a doctor's visit there's also the fact that he does perform about why rashid's should not be taken into account in the others but that isn't that correct under our mill bill so i think there were a couple of errors and that's likely to address the look at the entire record and the entire decision there was actual evidence supported algy decision and with respect to your question about the there only being objective evidence with regard to headaches there is you know i think it's a combination and i would say it's combination of subjective complaints and a definite testing you know there was largely you know normal testing in terms of you know even has you know memory being intact you know high average or you know in the average range over overall cognitive abilities were found to be mostly average to above average so when considered you know contrary all the evidence as a whole you know it shows that the sample evidence supported his notes from the same visit that because i quote in horrible condition unable to work as a coach still have significant headaches dizziness and nausea and quote that he was a troubled young man with a history of concussion with multiple symptoms showing you know largely normal bindings it's just not consistent with the subject as completely so you know i will say that f it does say that but it you know it's not consistent with the record as a to do is is talk about the rashid visit a couple things and he does know that the medications that that the plaintiff had been taking were no were not working which is throughout that that they they significant and i'm going to cite the court to ask is the exhibit number of page two it is three hundred and seventy six of the transcript rushing opinion was given after the nerve blocks and after he was started on the depakote and he even indicates in there on that page three hundred and seventy six that the medications are the depakote so i think that that all things considered rashid's opinion either should be given whether he did have to vomit or didn't have to vomit as one of the judges said he was in horrible shape same thing with doctor with doctor russell whether or not he asked for blinds to be taken down he was in horrible shape and even doctor russell indicated he couldn't work this is consistent throughout to say that an exam by workers comp doctor a very limited example very specific purposes adversely given before any of the records came in would would completely trump doctor mcgirr know the consultative doctor rashid all the testing all the medication would be incorrect we think it should be remanded thank you