non examining medical advi there was an m r i report there was a medical source statement completed by dr katz and there were several treatment notes in progress reports from dr katz dr jensen didn't specifically identify each item well i think in your in your briefs you basically characterized the case this being a disagreement between the treating physician dr katz and then on treating position dr johnson but there were two other physician involved as well is it your position that the medical opinions of the other two physicians should not be accorded any weight they should be accorded very little if any weight your honor and the reason being as follows don't tell me that dr johnson they did not examine this book more importantly they never testified they merely reviewed the file and wrote their comments into the record on behalf of the state agency but it's still part of it is still part of the record ok and you know obviously from just a legal standpoint just because one doctor saw the you know star mystic and the others didn't that you don't win just automatically there you have to tell me why these these other doctors certain to be discounted because obviously they all jay didn't just count them certainly the reason why their good morning my morning's john custer and i represent the apple e michael j asked through commissioner of social security i'd like to address first some of the questions that were asked concerning the two medical opinion dr katz opinion was that the claimant was incapable of performing even the full range of sedentary work dr jensen in the testifying medical expert opined that the claimant could perform a wide range of light work there is not a mere difference of opinion here however because what the administrative law judge found was that dr katz his opinion wasn't supported by his medical findings there are medical findings in the record they pertain exclusively to the claimants cervical her neck impairment the l j accepted limitations to that extent dr johnson's opinion reflects limitations that are based on the cervical impairment but there is no objective evidence that supports a limitation on sitting standing a walking and in fact the claim of herself doesn't allege limitations to the extent that dr katz said she had in the certified transcript not part of the excerpts but in the certified transcript of page seventy four of the claim it says that she can walk for you while you mentally claim it says that you can walk for two miles that she's able to stand for two hours she does say that she's limited to sitting for only fifteen minutes but that's an excess of what we're limited to not you can't come up with other ones pulling it out turning the administrative largest decision on transcript page thirteen he gives mi performance of a wide range of light work i believe that goes to the same point that there were limitations involving the claimants manipulative abilities but dr katz as evidence doesn't support limitations how you can just discount that out of hand finding the dail j s may properly rely on such evidence but the primary reason is that it's that dr johnson's opinion is substantial evidence is that supported by the other two not examining you the same question if in fact we agree with the apparent for these purposes just that just go back and award benefits or what where where are we in the process if we don't if we don't do not accept your argument and we feel that the parent is correct is is that automatically back for benefits or does it have to go back for  revaluate whatever medical evidence was presented at that time that might lead to another step for decision assuming that the case had to be decided that step five the claimant would not necessarily be disabled at step five she has a high school education a history of skilled past work what we don't know is whether the claimant has any true skills that are transferable to other work and that sort of special factor in given the claim limitations that he imposes upon the claim that you have the contrary opinions of three other doctors who can stated the same evidence that the claim it doesn't have limitations on and eight jackson he would have had the opportunity to review that i'm all right her former employment more importantly for purpose of what the remedy should be she specifically stated this could not perform any alternate occupations given her age education and previous work