sort of basic facts that may not really have very much to do with the legal issues here but just to say them on behalf of my client these are in the record and just to understand who this person is and how he got to the place he is now let me just mention that he's actually portuguese from the of the wars and he came to the united states and nineteen seventy seven if you look at  hundred eighty five he went back to the is ors and got married in cam back here and also in the record somewhere probably talking to a physical therapist but somewhere in the medical records you'll see that he said i used to run every other day and play soccer this is i feel a little guilty in a way of bringing such a simple case to this court this is a very standard kind of social security disability case but i think that jail while nayda deserves better than to be you know i just ability benefits based on what really are just are not supported by appropriate clinical findings there's no evidence that supports that and it's really not it's just not true at all they have a dence is  multiple reasons for the chronic lumbar and cervical pain primarily lumbar that they have i mean this is a counterfactual statement that just gets put into the decision  think that's used against the treating physician are sure not supported by the general weight of the evidence i already that specifically in the brief i mean the weight of the evidence is clearly pain and who is speaking out every avenue for relief of that pain to just say that his claim of disability is against the general weight of the evidence is hate methadone and other medications all at the same time for years and years and years you don't owe visiting pain management specialist and so on and so forth with no relief and things just getting worse and worse and worse for no reason i mean this is the stories are told by the medical evidence and it's not consistent saying you can do light work which by definition means that you can work on your feet six eight hours of the day with the other two hours basically being consumed by lunch and regulated breaks  saying that the treating physicians opinion appear to be influenced by the self report of the patient there's nothing in the those are the the mere words those mere words being used in an argument that i want to say something about which is you know the way this case is decided of course is to take the one doctor the doctor that the system that's just not acceptable almost every one of these cases is going to have that kind of evidence in the file if it's all an administrative law judge have to say is that and then if all this court really we might as well all go home well i understand that this is the the district court court said that in addition to knowing the lack of an objective to dish in which would be expected to cause disabling pain the chase disagree took issue with playing his testimony that one reason for his lack of ability to actually go and look at what happened and with a transcript of the hearing let's begin by what i what i began with today we've got the fact of the matter is joe i made it speaks english pretty well but it isn't it's first it this was a leading question that the it ministry of logic strapped in with this you want to take perhaps a little bit dramatic view of things and let me use that of the launching pad to note that the same thing happened with a medical expert that's on the other end of the telephone line and hearing you want to know how there is any other support for this besides that one consultant examiners because the administrative judge said well let's see exhibit such and such twelve for whatever it is that's been such about functional capacity would you agree with that doctor he said yeah based on the record your honor end of story evidence in the file and didn't pursue the basis of the opinion or whether there was any possibility of wiggle room in that opinion i mean this was another leading question also ok you have about a minute left demeanor and so on and so forth he's pretty conclusory and i thank you to explain why aren't they a rejection of the testimony why the rejection of credibility was permissible the found one that the objective medical findings were very suggestive and that they they indicated that although this person suffered from a back impairment and there was no question about that  the severity of their pain was not supported by the objective findings and that was verified by number of examining physicians each one of them examined the claimants and found no atrophy no wasting muscles cases the now that's a standard one of the cases that i looked at yesterday prior to coming here was me know and i did a fairly fairly good reading of it and it seemed to suggest to me that the facts were somewhat similar however i can't give you a citation to a case where they talk about the severity exactly like this i can't give you that but one of the things that bothered me when i first review the case was that the object of the absence of objective findings didn't rely on anything else other than the lack of corroborative medical tests that was actually the genesis of my original question to you because it seems to me that the regulations require a fuller explanation when there is a physical condition that could cause pain and about rejecting the credibility on the extent of pain and this fails they didn't go through the kinds that the regulation appears to require and i want to take it one step further and ask you to assume that we were to find that the adverse credibility finding is not consideration considering him credible what would we do i believe that you should i'll answer the first question the last second question first i believe that it should be remanded because we still don't know even if the credibility finding is d insufficient we don't know that the climate is necessarily credible we just know you would be finding that the l j did not go through the proper steps we still don't know what to what extent this person experienced pain and we decision unfortunately i don't have the page number here but it's it's next to the last page and talk about the inconsistent treatment record he did talk about progress which is the factor talked about progress noted in the in the in the in the treatment notes he also indicated that therapy had worked in the past and his and the doctor actually indicated that there had been some progress with the recommended that you continue and the l j found observed that physical therapy and this treatment measures have assisted has had alleviated some of his pain in the past and i assume that it would probably alleviate i in conjunction with or not with the medical factors is sufficient i don't know of any case that tells us how many factors we have to list and when i look at when i'm reviewing these cases i look at quality omega with the exception of the console the examiner and the doctor at the other end of the telephone the two points i want to make are number one obviously handle an awful lot of these cases and the kind of argument that i just heard about these are the things we look for for pain annoys me because i've seen these decisions written again and again and again this is what we look for for disco is not what we look for for paying these are neurological signs that he's talking about and moreover muscle wasting is very darn hard to find let me tell you  number two number two with respect to the two things we're talking about here analyzing a claim and then analyzing and treating physician i want to make sure that the court notices the point