thank you your honor good morning may it please the court i apologize for only appearing by phone but i am in my office and this is as far as we've got so i will hesitate when i can i have you on screen but i have a delay there so i will hesitate if i hear any interruption for questions i'll begin with the social security disability individual before us george duros george was at the time of disability attempt great educated i don't know if he finished th grade individual no ged fifty one years old at the time of his disability which is act tobar two thousand and thirteen for purposes of a short ten minute argument i'd like to begin because the court has or briefs but begin with the medical vocational guidelines because under two hundred and one ten with his education limited as it is with his age and with his medical problems if he is limited to sedentary work it mandates out a magic award of benefits so that's where i'd like to start is this is an individual who is determine he is capable of not a full range of life work but light work except he can only stand walk four hours out of an eight hour day i think that's the crux of the problem the focus of the air is where does that four hours come from where does that limitation exist in terms of objective medical evidence now one of the problems i struggle with and representing individuals such as george is he didn't have any money didn't have any money for medical care he undergoes a cervical fusion at the end of two thousand and twelve and following that the records get very scant and he testifies i just can't afford ninety dollars for a fifteen minute doctor visit and so he doesn't follow up and a lot of tests that he needs are not done so the record is not overwhelming in terms of medical records but what it does have a substantial amount of objective findings which confirm his description of his limitations now page thirty six of my  brief sept th george's description of what his limitations are why he felt he was disabled unable to stand unable to use his hands the a l j up to believe that obviously know the rules of the circuit the rules governing regulations governing social security do not require the a o l j except his testimony and especially here in view of the limited treating otherwise so could you just point to what is in the record that should and should have been looked at and was my understanding is that the they said that he wasn't going to work at  so that both the shoulders i'll get back to the examining doctor who ignores both of those next he has a back m r i before the cervical fusion december of eleven has a back lumbar spine m r i it shows a left side on the l four nerve where there's been this asymmetrical bulging disc now that's that's subjective there's no there's no evidence that's ever repaired there's no evidence of and so in terms of objective findings those objective findings support george's description that he has horrible pain when he's walking is back pain the legs go numb there's references from the treating doctor january of twelve the right leg and neither is numbness and tingling in both there is and dr hilo submit a report and in his report what significant is he does not say he can stand for hours he does not say anything about sitting for hours he indicates that read i find no indication in his exam that he is misreporting his pain that's the one that was that mentioned in the knowledge and i know that's that is simply ignored now the nd part and this i don't believe is in the l j opinion i picked from for twenty five in the record he says a realistic assessment of the level of disability should await the effective resolution of his depression physically he appears capable of at least moderate intensity work but he clearly does not believe it now that's the basis of that finding well he says i see no physical or x ray evidence justifying restrictions in standing walking or sitting room a tautology work may produce more evidence now he doesn't have access to the three m r i that supports looking at here defense counsel and i and the court have available far more information than this than this examining why why why i don't know why he didn't have those available but he does not reference and when he makes a statement saying i see no physical or x ray evidence he never mentions any of the three m r i s and so i think we come back to the reference this quarter notice that when you have a we have treating doctors here that have medical objective medical findings and opinions about what's wrong with it and if those are going to be rejected but another non  treating physician that a physician needs to have the court has called it substantial evidence must support his opinion and in this case it's clear he didn't have that reasons then the important language for this case supported by substantial evidence in the record here he lows record handles opinion is not supported by substantial evidence in the record all the m thank you your honor is good morning jeffrey mclean on behalf of the commissioner of social security this is a close period issue case stretching from october two thousand and thirteen to june two thousand and fourteen what  case it's a closed period at issue k o so there's a fairly limited stretch of time that we're dealing with here and a town council is correct the logical specialist that was dr me here referred the appellant to and the algae did not necessarily reject any functional imitation by dr wave because there weren't any functional limitations wayne differential diagnoses because they were not supported by any test and that testing was insecure because of the lack of the l j r excuse me the agency however recognized that there was an inadequacy of the complaints from the person they're examining and they perform a full body examination where they identify the range of motion the strengths the standing walking lifting kind of functional appears to be capable of the least moderate intensity work but he clearly does not believe that and his capability of at least moderate intensity work is consistent with the l g a of determination that he can may not be able to work about chest height with any level of performance and the l g a identified that there were reaching restrictions and included reaching instructions in the residual functional capacity villages functional abilities and it was found opinion and i know that there are no other opinions in the records stating that this individual is disable all the opinions of functional in the patients for just the ability to work that's consistent with the edges finding supported by substantial evidence which were sufficient to support the credibility determination even use the conservative treatment finding was an error that included the objective medical evidence and the effectiveness of treatment  well dr deals did have an expert at it and order that in order to more fully develop his review of the clinical finding and exam that's in addition to the objective testing that  dr heal performed in terms of motor functioning strength range of motion and standing walking those types of test things that are helpful in determining what an individual's capable performing