pandects last paragraph j says you understand consider the claimants testimony at the hearing that you need is a bad thing ten or fifteen times each day but finds that this would not significantly interfere how well the kind that might be able to take some of those breaks on a regular were breaks but also some of them would occur outside the workday but that's a mistake of fact l j mistakenly found that the claimant would need ten or fifteen breaks for an entire day or some period of time that's not actually syrian the decision where it's clear that the claimant testify that those ten or fifteen breaks would occur during the workday in fact it was the l j who questioned the claimant very early and asked her to consider a period from nine in the morning until five in the afternoon how often would she need to use the restroom and the claimant said ten or fifteen times for two to ten minutes at a time there's no other place in the record where that number ten or fifteen bathroom breaks comes up so it's it was only from the famous testimony the l j made a mistake the fact the court can't tell how the l j would have rolled and the l j not made this mistake a fact she may well have found that well according to the vocational expert this number of braces were for close it physicians that she had your area problems and to other physicians that she did not why isn't the happy itself enough to support to provide substantial evidence examined her left foot and only in the review of systems the doctor said that the claimant tonight and then less twenty years different things so it's possible she felt out of foreign stuff it's unlikely a month that she made that statement or allegedly made that statement to the production has she wants a document not the specifically for a year in every frequency problem and he referred her to the physical therapist ms johnson where she got specific deterioration in existing problems l j should not be evaluating that objective evidence herself because she's not qualified to do that and should submit that evidence for a medical view in this case we have in particular the left shoulder where the claimants that shoulder condition deteriorated chunder when surgery after doctor because she reviewed the record and dr angeline had  on in addition the claimant had undue longer spine impairment which was severe and complex as we cited seventeen of the reply briefly quote decision of the commissioner said morning i'm christy tate on behalf of the agency in this case the answer was not required to accept all of the allegations put forth by miss harris patterson during her testimony especially where as here the allegations were not supported by the record the only link between ms harris patterson and allegations that she had to use the restroom between ten dollars fifteen times each visit for two to ten minutes during the workday is her testimony there is no other record support for this there is diagnosis and there is treatment but there is no evidence that it was as severe as she claims and what we know a in which the l j questioned her on this the st thing ms harris patterson said was i'm in the bathroom twenty four hours a day and the a l j followed up and said you don't really mean that what do you what does this really look like and then she went on to say i go about ten dollars to twelve dollars times a day for two to ten minutes each and the l g a drilled down and it was her testimony that this would occur during the workday but the decisions of not denied them all and that was after the craniotomy and that's one more piece of evidence there's other instances in the record cause the algae to be skeptical we know this because the algae describe it she told her doctors in september of two thousand and fifteen she said i have no issues i'm in i'm in good general health she was at times not compliant with all of the treatment recommendations she hasn't got we have statements of her health care providers primarily her primary her family physician dr mcnulty was testing her for her alleged numbness and tingling in her hand there were very little positive signs and she remarked in the records that she tested positive for anything he asked her for she also in two thousand and seventeen in september of two thousand and ten this is post surgery this is with the physical therapist all german and it was clear from his alderman note that ms harris patterson was not putting forth her full effort all of this creates a cloud of skepticism over the testimony from ms harris patterson miss harris patterson claims if that was decisive significant medical evidence that triggered the responsibility to call another expert that is not the case what that m r i showed was minimal minimal results beyond that what we know from subsequent physical therapy records and general physical examination miss harris patterson she had some tenderness along her cervical not even her she had some tenderness in an examination in september of two thousand and seventeen noble mar issues moreover she had postering normal date normal sensation and full range of motion and that happened again in subsequent records in two thousand and eighteen so the notion that this earth later submitted evidence was so significant it triggered a responsibility to get additional expert testimony that's not borne out by the physic by the records and her physical condition moreover her own treating surgeon dr angeline cleared her for medium work and i heard the argument f ms harris patterson the restrictions were temporary for the listing but in the most recent the most recent statement from dr angeline says she's clear for medium work medium or means she can lift the lifting restrictions were at a medium level which is actually fighter and less burdensome and the r f c j created in that message was functional capacity  relevant evidence as a reasonable mind could accept as adequate to support a conclusion here had numerous objective evidence we have a stress test that she was cleared to do were that she could exercise at the level of an average woman her age we have her cleared by her surgeon after all of her surgeries for medium level work and the o j was entitle to rely on all of that evidence and remain skeptical of her statements that are in the record