law requires the ability to lift up to twenty pounds occasionally and up to ten pounds frequently and it requires a good deal of walking or standing which is the finders sixty eight hours a day in this case my client would have been and should have been presumptively disabled under the the grid's because he was closely approaching advanced age and at very best  perform sedentary work in fact he did not have the residual functional capacity of the r f c to perform any work you could you just identify what is the evidence you are relying on where the doctor says he couldn't  that he is disabled yes well i'm just trying to find it can be i'm not saying there needs to be a very specific statement but tell me what you're relying on in the medical records that demonstrates that he would like that but we look at it recommended in recent years i don't know he didn't recommend it he said it's an option but i don't i do not recommend it in my client did not have it but you know the case comes down to the credibility of my client because it is he had these documented conditions that the doctors that dr arg well s and particular discussed he had severe lateral and central stenosis which is a narrowing of the explicitly or implicitly discrediting of your client's credibility was wrong yes yes when you have an objective cause for pain and  doctors say you have that you would need an explicit explanation of why the person is not credible in this case my client reading history is treating internal medicine doctor doctor was in ski you know one through expected to produce the pain dr well since ski did prescribe him strong narcotic pain medications he did find that he had pain of crosses back  wasif the commissioner's consultant noted that he had severe that he had lumbar ridiculous up a theory and he couldn't walk on his heels and his toes and dr rowan the pain specialist who saw him within a month after the decision found that he had claudication which means he had a difficult time walking none of that in thinking that the administrati judge did not discredit that he had it's a question of how much time and what it kept him from doing yeah and if you look at what he testified to eat really had it was very limited in his daily activities he needed help doing things he had to sit down he couldn't vacuum do laundry he had to sit down for three to four hours a day and there's no reason to discredit him it was consistent with the record he was never internally inconsistent his doctors didn't find that he was exaggerating that they all jerry relied on incorrect legal factors to discredit him the fact he didn't inhance is very good work history and here's a guy who went back to work for two and a half weeks and tried to work and was unable to do it and then he took another job for three weeks a sedentary job and couldn't do it he applied for unemployment which is what people you're allowed to do that until you're officially found to be disabled and he held that against him and everybody who gets unemployment has to report they're able to work and in new york people do that because they don't get short term disability he tested positive one time for benzodiazepine and his doctor kept on treating him they didn't do another test he couldn't afford to  get further treatment and when he did get the further treatment we see he did get spinal injections and it was further limited that they l j incorrectly found that he was laid off for business reasons he never testified to that he testified he was laid off you can't is presumed people use a term like laid off when your you can't work for any reason so that no doctor ever said he was not credible he had this strong support with an if is a pediatrician and not a neurosurgeon and he said he had moderate limitations in walking in standing that does not mean you cannot you can stand and walk for eight hours he testified that he couldn't doctor or go well as said he maybe could do moderate activity and again moderate activity as a matter of law does not support a conclusion you can do light work on a full time as identified in the in the residual functional capacity determination by the l j cited substantial evidence in support of his findings and determined that that right was capable of light work with some postur limitations l j rely on the benign findings in the clinical evidence by the treating doctors as well as the examination findings of consultative examiner dr wasif which again showed benign findings  wasif was a pediatrician is one factor to take into into account however the the evidence from dr wasif including his examination findings and his opinion with regard to mr wright's limitations were consistent with the other evidence in the record including the evidence from specialist dr r goal us who found that wright was not keep shouldn't do heavy work but had repeated benign examination by things and didn't indicate that right couldn't do light work so here at the fact that dr on numerous factors in relation to wright's credibility he did discuss the work history and he noted that there was work activity after the alleged onset date of the disability mr wright allege that he was disabled as of december twenty third teen that he had work which he admitted was heavy construction work for twelve to fourteen hour days requiring him to lift over one hundred pounds in april of two thousand and fourteen for he said two and a half months there is some conflicting evidence  the record as to how long it lasted but taking his taking mr wright's testimony two and a half weeks sorry i mean seven months on two and a half weeks of that type of work and after that he didn't other job that required him to assist people with  he was getting in and out of cars doing hiking fishing and basically helping people with all of their daily activities the elder noted that that that came in the summer of two thousand and fourteen so all this is substantially after the time that he was alleged he was disabled the l j also noted that he represented during the period that he was disabled in connection with his receipt of unemployment and put unemployment benefits that he was ready willing and able to work now l j was noting that's inconsistent with his statement to the social security administration that he was disabled as of december twenty third teen so that's a credibility issue as well the elder also noted the inconsistency between wright's complaints and the objective evidence in the clinical findings of the treating doctors and dr wassef which again as we've said were essentially benign findings where there really is no evidence in the clinical examinations of severe impairment the l j the old you mentioned rights drug use in the opinion but he there's no evidence that they found that the testing positive for benzodiazepines was a dispositive issue in terms of credibility however the fact that he mentioned it if he had considered it if he did consider in terms of credibility is a perfectly legitimate thing to consider in terms of a claimant's credibility courts have held that substance abuse is a proper consideration in terms of the claimants credibility  and the elder also considered mr wright statements during the period of disability to this treating doctor that his pain was at its least when he was occupied with work activities those are that's a general summary of the factors there to consider in the credibility determination  so getting back to the functional capacity determination l j did cite substantial evidence and in the form of the clinical findings and the consultative examiner opinion  and examination findings the andre also cited substantial evidence in support of his mental residual functional capacity assessment that wright was capable of simple work and could do complex work only under supervision and he also limited right to frequent contact with others and to no more than frequent changes in the work setting again the l j said it substantial evidence in support of this decision and of this finding noting that the consultative examiner dr  a benign mental status examination with mr right and she had and the limitations that he found in the mental residual functional capacity mirrored those that dr meltzer set forth with the exception of a statement in her opinion that stated that right symptoms could significantly interfere with his ability to function on a daily basis to explain he didn't find that to be supported by the evidence but he did adopt all the other limitations and dr melters examination which included that he had limitations  to moderate limitations in learning new tasks performing complex tasks independently relating with others and appropriately dealing with stress in support of the mental residual functional capacity assessment he also cited the opinion of state agency dr faron who had reviewed all the evidence and determine that right was capable of work was capable of maintaining attention and concentration and was capable of the mental demands  work we discussed the credibility assessment and after after undertaking the credibility assessment they determined that wright was not able to do his past work of heavy construction given the residual functional capacity assessment and he move on to step five of the six month sequential evaluation he relied on the testimony of a vocational expert who testified that there were jobs in significant numbers in the national economy that a person of wright's age education vocational profile  and residual functional capacity could perform the vocational experts testimony was based on a hypothetical question that reflected the limitations that were credibly established in the evidence right has argued that l j incorrectly declined to rely on responses to hypotheticals that were not supported by evidence that were submitted by by right to the to the location expert the elder is only required to rely on any hope of that on answers to hypotheticals that are supported by evidence in the record and those additional hypotheticals that right support right submitted were not supported by evidence on the record the l j determined based on the vocational expert's testimony that there were jobs and significant numbers in the national me that to the extent that we use the substantial evidence test we have to decide whether or not a reasonable person looking at all the evidence from both sides could determine that mr wright perform light work and you are presumptively reasonable judges and reasonable people and i don't think you can based on this record before you the consultative psychologist after relying on her own tests and exams found that he has psych problems may significantly impair with his ability to function and the judge used his medical opinions to overrule that of his own examiner and really no way it should be given to the non examining experts if my client was credible and he was because there was no reason to discredit him with his support then he could not do late work dr arg well as recommended he apply for disability no that is not he didn't say he can't work but it's rare i've seen that a neurosurgeon would recommend that and that's based on the severe limitations that he found pain is not exertional so the fact that somebody can walk for a few minutes does not mean that you can work and sustain work on a full time basis for six to eight for eight hours a day you know it doesn't mean he talked about his problems with focus and concentration which is caused by pain and in that was very credible it's very reasonable that reasonable person i think would have to find that mr right would be off task ten to fifteen percent of the time because of his pain he try to work that doesn't discredit him that credit's him that he went back and tr  is heavy work in cunt do it for two and a half weeks that should not as a matter of law that should not be held against him that he tried that work from what he was from what it was determined he was capable of yes right but he tried to do his previous work which is all he's done and he was unable to do that work and he did try it and he tried later work and he couldn't do that the judge did not give him a chance to explain why he was getting unemployment the christoper all memo specifically says you're not incredible because you apply for unemployment even though we all know that you have to certify you're able to work and maybe he could have done sedentary work but in this case i think there's no substantial evidence that he could perform late work in this case and i would ask you to remember this for a new hearing thank you