that he would withdraw the second issue which is in section c of the brief and reply brief we did i did submit something i don't know if your honour's received it on friday indicating that i was  placed on a checklist form and that on that form the doctor did not indicate to contaminants that he was relying on or the symptoms and diagnostic tests that  records then the opinion is and should be given more significance and that's what we're really dealing with here is that factor i q sign your opinion should have been considered based on the treatment records that record why we don't have one hundred eighty treatment no visits in this case there are at least forty treatment visits over a bought a four year period of time which is quite a few times seeing a primary care physician ten times a year of four years is fairly significant and dr i q sanyo has driven no it's a very detailed they outline compliance of mr mcfadden when he came in they outlined the doctor's observations and examination results they outlined the scription or treatment that the doctor prescribed and that goes on over this four year period of time so that's what the l j should have consider it's clear that d writes that on this checklist he circles severe pain and i'm not sure the treatment notes bear that out well the treatment notes some of the treatment notes do actually  aware of these doctors recommendations in the treatment and missed mcfadden had surgery on his left knee and on his right knee but even after that it was done recommended that he needed bilateral new replacement he glacial procedure on his varicose veins because of severe fatigue and heaviness and pain in his legs and then he went back to the doctor because he was having recurring symptoms the doctor noted a return i believe is related to the diabetes condition and of course as extreme obesity almost by itself or in addition considered in combination with the knee problems and the vein problems would the plaintiffs representative to contact the doctor to get the explanation that the l g thought was lacking rather than just to reject this treating doctor's opinion because because the report itself didn't include all the information that they wanted to wanted to see well in particular mr mcfadden testify that he elevated his legs multiple times a day in order to relieve the pain and mcfadden had to elevate his legs and he was on a couple there were no jobs for jay rejected that opinion saying there is no support for it but yet there is support for it given treating doctor's opinion the what's the basis for his well instruction art ok recommendation that he needs to elevate his legs frequently or he doesn't explain but again as the plaintiff has extremely ill be and had this follow up opinion from him but again i think dr i q signed his opinion it's exactly the type of opinion that the treating physician rule regulations was met to deal with you have a doctor who is very familiar with impairments for years worth of treatment you know it's very detail right i don't think that's that's the problem here the problem is that he really didn't offer any explanation and his the severity of his findings in this checklist are not really part of my his treatment notes at least not on a consistent basis so without further explanation from him it's hard to see what he's basing those simply or findings on and that's why we  this doctor's opinion was entitle to greater weight than any nine examining doctor's opinion so i still think that the rationale behind burnett should  good morning your honors my name is katherine segal i represent the acting commissioner of social security in this case in the initial matter i would just like to point out that many of the arguments that mr szell's is making today are are new arguments appellate court for the first time that the claimant such ernie did not make before the district court and and he can't raise them at this at this point in the appellate court without raising them first in the district court specifically  challenging the reasons for discounting dr oku sanna's opinion that was never raised in the district court the district court brief talked about a sit stand option not being adequately explained finding to the extent that he she referenced dr focus on a he just says that it should be given control that opinion should be given a controlling weight because it was from a treating physician good tree the claimant for four years he does not challenge the specific reasons that the l a gave in his analysis of that treating physician opinion but the argument was made that the treating doctor dr hassan his opinion should have been given controlling weight cell isn't that enough to preserve the issue even though it's more robustly developed here well except that it's it was so so little development at the district court level it really i believe it's it really was raised i mean it wasn't raised to the extent that that he can now expand on it to this extent where he's going into each and every factor that the l j considered and in criticizing them he never raised any of those criticisms in the district court so our position is that he forfeited tho or she did not have to give controlling weight unless that opinion is well supported by the record and the ale jade did find that it was not well supported by the objective medical evidence and that it was inconsistent with other substantial evidence  the record and one of the things that the l j expected dr ocus on you to do was to explain the reasons for these very very extreme limits some of the limits are  absolutely not supported like the limit and find manipulation with either hand the the doctor said there was never any fine manipulation of this claim and could do never and said that there there was no amount of weight that they could that the doctor if the claimant could frequently left at that it could only sit for fifteen minutes and for two hours total and those those kinds of findings are absolutely not for now where the records and plaintiff's counsel cites to the contractors friedman notes and said that the l g a should have looked to those for the answers to that the or the explanation for all these limits but if you do look at that  had normal strength and normal grip on exam that's it page seventy sixty two of the record in may of two thousand and thirteen right around the same time as that opinion was given the doctor also finds no gate abnormality and yet in this opinion he's talking about walking or standing limits that are fifteen minutes at a time it's just not borne out by by the the objective findings in the treatment and while he does talk about a lump on the claimant's wrist which turned out to be diagnosed as a gangly insist that finding was made at the same time that the doctor said that there were no restrictions and strength or and  clearly that condition did not affect the claimant's gripping strength and as his fine manipulation to the extent that the doctor indicated on the form so those things are re cord of it and subjective evidence that supported the l g s conclusion that there wasn't a good enough reason to have these kinds of extreme limitations on the claimant on the other hand the l g did consider and examining physicians opinion and to state agency physician opinions and they gave a lot of findings that were consistent what their conclusions of the claim and could do a range of light work  as far as the the the question of of not filling up and not not giving an explanation in it and that he wasn't required to do so because they didn't ask him to do so that's really not accurate because in the report itself at the bottom it says please provide additional details so even on metformin itself m p t twenty two the form asks for additional details and six lines and they're just left completely blank so the dr was kind of given a little hint that he should be putting some information in there to explain the opinion and yet he chose not to do that so that's that's al hence it's more than a hint right exactly i mean it's please provide additional detail they get it doesn't get any clearer than that i mean so it was reasonable for the l g to expect that kind of explanation and when it wasn't here i mean that that was a reasonable basis for considering when giving him less weight is first that the different subject and finding the l g did go through the record in and consider lots of different things about the claimants treatment earlier in the decision when there's during the general discussion of the evidence that supported  findings she did talk about the arthroscopic surgery and noted that the the claimant had excellent results after the both of those surgeries in fact they did the nothe left me first to have such a good result then they young and they abandoned that treatment possibility so there never was any replacement surgery and there it doesn't seem like that's something that would was considered by the doctors them when he had each time he had a good result he did another brain and although he had to elevate his legs for a short time after each procedure that was not an ongoing limit and the suggestion that he would have to frequently elevate his legs because of the legs wound is also not supported by the record because when he did have legs welling his doctors actually told him to engage in activities he was told that he should do a home exercise program aquatic exercise and he should lose weight to reduce swelling in his legs if they did not mention like elevation for swelling reduction just in the regular medical records and you can see examples of that at six forty eight and six fifty one of the record more mr mcfadden could do over an eight hour day he said he could stay on for ten to fifteen minutes live ten to fifteen but he never opined that he could do that for an extended period thank you very much thank you cases taken under